With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Additionally, throughout their testimony each defendant continued to insist that Mr. Lamb represent him. The record before us clearly demonstrates that Phillip H. Yelton and Randy Scott Yelton have voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived then-right to appeal, if convicted, on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel based upon Mr. Lamb’s potential conflict of interest. Id. 361 S.E.2d at 757. In United States v. Cirrincione, 780 F.2d 620, 628 (7th Cir.1985), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of the defendants’ affirmative waiver of their right to conflict-free representation where the testimony of one of the defendants at the grand jury was not direct evidence against 7 L.Ed.2d 472 (1992); Duncan v. Alabama, 881 F.2d 1013, 1017-18 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Bridges v. United States, 794 F.2d 1189, 1194

A: holding that because the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to separate counsel in light of the courts unambiguous advisement that joint representation could present a very substantial conflict so far as his defense is concerned the defendant was precluded from claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to the conflict of interest that ultimately developed
B: holding that there was a valid waiver of defendants right to conflictfree representation despite the courts failure to inform the defendant of the existence of a potential conflict of interest since the defendant was well aware of the factual basis which created the conflict
C: holding that the defendant did not validly waive his right to conflictfree representation where the district court inadequately advised the defendant of the risks of multiple representation
D: holding that the defendant validly waived right to conflictfree representation where the defendant knew a conflict existed its effect on his defense and his right to have other counsel appointed
D.