IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10124
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GEORGE D. FARQUHAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:96-CR-120-X
- - - - - - - - - -
December 9, 1998
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George D. Farquhar was convicted of mail fraud in a case
hereinafter referred to as the “boat case.” Farquhar subsequently
pleaded to one count of using fire to commit a felony in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 844(h) in a case hereinafter referred to as the
“arson case.”
Farquhar contends that the district court clearly erred by
increasing his offense level for obstruction of justice in the boat
case because the concealment of evidence occurred in the arson case
not the boat case. In his challenge to the obstruction
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-10124
-2-
enhancement, Farquhar completely ignores the fact that he failed to
appear for sentencing, a separate and adequate basis for the
enhancement under § 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The
district court's imposition of an increase for obstruction of
justice was not clearly erroneous. See United States v.
O’Callaghan, 106 F.3d 1221, 1223 (5th Cir. 1997).
The district court did not err in denying credit for
acceptance of responsibility. Conduct which results in an offense-
level enhancement under § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice
"ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted
responsibility for his criminal conduct" except in "extraordinary
cases in which adjustments under both §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 may
apply." § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4). See United States v. Ayala, 47
F.3d 688, 691 (5th Cir. 1995).
The disparity between Farquhar’s sentence and that received by
his coconspirators did not amount to a violation of his rights
under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth
Amendment. See United States v. Rojas-Martinez, 968 F.2d 415, 419-
20 (5th Cir. 1992)
Farquhar asserts that his counsel was ineffective on the
general basis that counsel did not adequately "investigate,
develop[,] and present all facts, matters[,] and issues" relevant
to the case. Blue brief, 23-29. We will not reach the merits of
the claim because is not sufficient to allow the court "to evaluate
fairly the merits of the claim." United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d
312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987).
No. 98-10124
-3-
Farquhar asserts that all of the errors alleged in his appeal,
even though they may be found to be harmless individually, combine
to create reversible error. As discussed above, Farquhar has
established no error, much less harmless error, in the district
court’s handling of this case. Even accepting the premise that
multiple harmless errors can accumulate to a reversible error, an
infinite number of allegations that produce no showing of any error
cannot add up to reversible error. “Twenty times zero equals
zero.” Mullen v. Blackburn, 808 F.2d 1143, 1147 (5th Cir. 1987).
Farquhar has filed a motion for leave to file a pro se
supplemental brief. It is against this court’s policy to consider
pro se motions and briefs from parties who are represented by
counsel. See United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535, 540 (5th Cir.
1978). The motion is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.