Opinion
3:05cr103.
July 24, 2006
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon letter of the defendant pro se dated July 17, 2006, asking that his appointed counsel be replaced prior to sentencing.
New counsel was appointed for the defendant in November 2005. The Court finds that the defendant's allegations about his counsel's performance fail to establish grounds to appoint substitute counsel. United States v. Mullen, 32 F.3d 891 (4th Cir. 1994). Additionally, the defendant's stated refusal to cooperate with counsel does not warrant a change of attorneys.United States v. Morsley, 64 F.3d 907, 918 (4th Cir. 1995).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the defendant's motion is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to certify copies of this order to the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and to the United States Attorney.