Harpine

MEMORANDUM *

David Harpine appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to vacate his conviction and sentence. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

Harpine contends that his conviction must be reversed because his trial attorney operated under a conflict of interest that deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel. Alternatively, he argues that the district court erred by refusing to grant an evidentiary hearing on his conflict-based ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

1. If a trial court fails to inquire into a potential conflict of interest about which it knew or reasonably should have known, the defendant’s conviction will not be reversed unless the defendant establishes that his counsel was laboring under *628 an actual conflict of interest that affected counsel’s performance. Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 1243-44 , 152 L.Ed.2d 291 (2002).

Although the present record does not so establish, we will assume that Harpine could prove at an evidentiary hearing that his attorney was operating under an actual conflict of interest while…