In our initial decision in this case, we noted that

even were the trial court to find that Jiang’s attorney might have had an interest in keeping him from testifying at [Mahiques’s] trial, this would arguably present a conflict of interest only if appellant, represented by a conflict-free attorney, might have found it useful for Jiang to testify.

Jiang, 140 F.3d at 127-28. On remand, the district court held that “[A] thorough review of the record reveals that Jiang could not serve as a ‘useful’ witness to any defense attorney, regardless of whether the attorney was or was not laboring under a conflict of interest.” Mahiques, 29 F.Supp.2d at 173.

Given the district court’s supplementation of the record, we now affirm the district court’s finding that no conflict of interest existed.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.