Opinion
5:92-CR-48 (WDO).
April 24, 2007
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion [193] for appointment of counsel on appeal of this Court's denial of his motions to amend his sentence. Due to the straight-forward nature of Petitioner's claims on appeal, and the frivolity of the arguments raised as the bases to amend his sentence, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not justified in this case.See Schultz v. Wainwright, 701 F.2d 900, 901 (11th Cir. 1983) ("Counsel must be appointed for an indigent federal habeas petitioner only when the interests of justice or due process so require.") (citing 18 U.S.C.A. § 3006A(g); Norris v. Wainwright, 588 F.2d 130, 133 (5th Cir.)).