United States v. Joshua Cobb

── United States v. Joshua Cobb ── Case No.: 24-14174 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 16, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-14174 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-14174 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSHUA GRANT COBB, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:24-cr-00136-PGB-RMN-1 ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Joshua Cobb is appealing his convictions for drug and fire- arm offenses. Cobb argues that the district court reversibly erred by failing to sua sponte inquire into a conflict of interest between USCA11 Case: 24-14174 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 24-14174 him and his counsel based on the sentence-appeal waiver. After careful review, we affirm. We review claims involving a counsel’s conflict of interest de novo. United States v. Williams, 902 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 2018). The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the As- sistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. The right to effective assistance of counsel “includes the right to counsel who is unimpaired by conflicting loyalties.” Duncan v. Alabama, 881 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1989) (involving a conflict-of-interest claim raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus proceeding). A district court has a duty to inquire into a potential conflict of inter- est either upon an objection or “where a trial court knows or rea- sonably should know that a particular conflict exists -- whether that conflict relates to joint representation of codefendants or to other conflicts.” Dallas v. Warden, 964 F.3d 1285, 1303 (11th Cir. 2020). If the court is on notice and fails to inquire into the conflict, “reversal is only warranted if the petitioner shows an actual conflict that negatively affected his attorney’s performance.” Id. at 1303– 04. Reversal is “automatic” when a trial court improperly requires joint representation of codefendants over timely objection. Id. at 1302–03. The defendant must show an “actual conflict” because a speculative or merely hypothetical conflict of interest does not yield a Sixth Amendment violation. Reynolds v. Chapman, 253 F.3d 1337, 1342–43 (11th Cir. 2001). “An ‘actual conflict’ of interest USCA11 Case: 24-14174 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026 Page: 3 of 5 24-14174 Opinion of the Court 3 occurs when a lawyer has ‘inconsistent interests.’” Freund v. Butter- worth, 165 F.3d 839, 859 (11th Cir. 1999). The inquiry into the ex- istence of an actual conflict is “fact-specific.” Id. The burden is on the defendant to “point to specific instances in the record to suggest an actual conflict or impairment of [his] interests.” United States v. Mers, 701 F.2d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 1983) (citation modified). A record that shows only the theoretical division of counsel’s lo