Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to amend his habeas petition challenging his sentence under Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) on ground that he had actually received certificate that would render one of his three prior convictions not countable for ACCA purposes, where amendment raised different claim that his prior escape and reckless endangerment convictions were not violent felonies for ACCA purposes. State responded to original habeas claim with evidence that defendant had produced “fake” certificate, and Dist. Ct. could properly conclude that proposed amendment was proffered in bad faith where: (1) defendant failed to reply to State’s claim that he had produced fake certificate; and (2) instant proposed amendment was attempt to supplant original claim to avoid dismissal on merits and to evade limitation on filing second or successive habeas petitions. Ct further noted that defendant’s claim in his amended habeas petition was untimely since it was proffered more than one year after any Supreme Court decision supporting his argument.