Noe v. US, No. 08-2057, involved habeas proceedings arising from a drug conspiracy conviction and sentence. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of petitioner's habeas petition, on the grounds that 1) the district court's determination that defendant and his codefendant were represented by independent counsel was not clearly erroneous; 2) petitioner claimed that defense counsel's failure to pursue a split conspiracy defense or to "point the finger" at the codefendant established an actual conflict, but he did not show that these strategies were objectively reasonable; and 3) petitioner made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to conflict-free assistance of counsel.
As the court wrote: "In 2003, Peter Noe was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine and conspiracy to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 841(b)(1)(B), 846, and 851, and was sentenced to 480 months' imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Noe, 411 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2005). In 2007, Noe petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing, in part, that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied Noe's petition and granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective because of dual representation or a conflict of interest. Noe appeals, arguing the district court erred in (1) determining that there was not joint representation, (2) finding that Noe waived his right to conflict-free representation,
(3) denying a habeas hearing, and (4) refusing to expand the certificate of appealability. We affirm."