United States v. Steinbrecher

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 2, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-50538
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CLARENCE W. STEINBRECHER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:00-CR-184-ALL
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clarence W. Steinbrecher appeals the 30-month sentence he
received following the revocation of his supervised release after
his jury-trial conviction and sentence for failing to file a tax
return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. He argues that the
$50,000 fine imposed as part of his sentence following his
underlying conviction exceeded the maximum allowed by statute.
Steinbrecher cannot challenge the fine imposed in the original

-- 1 of 2 --

judgment in this appeal. Cf. United States v. Moody, 277 F.3d 719,
720-21 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Stiefel, 207 F.3d 256, 259
(5th Cir. 2000). Even if Steinbrecher’s challenge to the $50,000
were reviewable in this proceeding, it is without merit. The fine
imposed by the district court was authorized by law. 18 U.S.C. §
3571(b)(1) & (5), (e); 26 U.S.C. § 7203.
Steinbrecher’s brief also includes several pro se issues
briefed by Steinbrecher rather than counsel. Although included
with counsel’s brief, counsel has not adopted these issues.
Steinbrecher does not have a “constitutional right to hybrid
representation.” See United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447, 449
n.1 (5th Cir. 1999); see also 5TH CIR. R. 28.7 (“Unless specifically
directed by court order, pro se motions, briefs or correspondence
will not be filed if the party is represented by counsel.”). Cf.
Myers v. Johnston, 76 F.3d 1330, 1335 (5th Cir. 1996) (“when a
criminal appellant accepts the assistance of counsel, but later
objects to his attorney’s appeal strategy or preparation of the
brief, the criminal appellant cannot then expect to be allowed to
file a supplemental brief. By accepting the assistance of counsel
the criminal defendant waives the right to present pro se briefs on
direct appeal.”). Therefore, we do not consider these issues,
which in any event are frivolous and wholly without merit.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --