IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11707

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

TRENT BREWER,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CR-294-2

Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Trent Brewer, federal prisoner # 24313-077 and proceeding pro se, 

challenges the district court’s ordering the Bureau of Prisons to turn over all 

but $200 in his inmate-trust account, in partial satisfaction of $5,000 in 

restitution owed the victims of his crimes. The grant of a turnover order is 

reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Messervey, 182 F. App’x 318, 

 

* 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

FILED

October 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11707 Document: 00514200025 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2017
No. 16-11707

2

321 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Santibanez v. Wier McMahon & Co., 105 F.3d 234, 

239 (5th Cir. 1997)). There was no abuse of discretion, as discussed below.

The turnover order arises out of Brewer’s 1997 conviction for mail fraud, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and fraudulent use of a social-security number, 

in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). He contends the order was improper 

because, inter alia, he did not owe interest on his original restitution 

obligation, he never defaulted on his Inmate Financial Responsibility Program 

(IFRP) payment plan, the Government violated the notification requirements 

in 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k), and he paid $1,800 while on supervised release in 2003–

04. He also contends, inter alia, that, in the light of the necessity of discovery 

in proving his $1,800 in payments and the practical impossibility of conducting 

such discovery while incarcerated, the court erred in not appointing him 

counsel. 

In asserting he does not owe interest on the original $5,000 restitution 

obligation, Brewer claims his 1997 judgment did not require payment of 

interest. He also contends there is a conflict between the oral and written 

amended-revocation judgments regarding the payment of interest, because the 

court did not orally require interest. 

Interest is required by statute, unless waived by the district court at 

sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3612(f)(1) (“defendant shall pay interest on any fine or 

restitution”). Even assuming the court did not orally require Brewer to pay 

interest, there is no conflict in the oral and written judgments because 18 

U.S.C. § 3612(f)(1) requires the payment of interest, unless waived. In 

addition, Brewer’s amended-revocation judgment, imposed in 2005, did require 

payment of interest. 

Next, Brewer asserts that, because he has not defaulted on his IFRP 

payment plan, the court could not enter a turnover order. Participation in the 

 Case: 16-11707 Document: 00514200025 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2017
No. 16-11707

3

IFRP and compliance with a payment schedule does not “preclude[] the 

Government from using other available collection mechanisms to seek 

payment of monetary penalties”. United States v. Diehl, 848 F.3d 629, 633 (5th 

Cir. 2017). Brewer received a $4,000 inheritance in his inmate-trust account,

and he was required to apply those funds to his remaining restitution balance

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n), regardless of whether he unfailingly paid his 

$20-per-month IFRP payment plan. 

Brewer asserts the Government failed to comply with the notification 

requirements in 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k), which requires notification of changes in 

circumstances affecting defendant’s ability to pay restitution. The notification 

requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) is inapplicable because the Government’s 

motion was based on 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n): “If a person obligated to provide 

restitution . . . receives substantial resources . . . including inheritance . . . such 

person shall be required to apply the value of such resources to any restitution 

. . . owed”. There is no notification requirement for 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n).

For the claim that he was not credited the $1,800 in payments he made 

while on supervised release in 2003–04, Brewer has the burden of proving such 

payments. United States v. Sheinbaum, 136 F.3d 443, 449 (5th Cir. 1998); 18 

U.S.C. § 3664(e). Brewer provides no proof he made such payments while on 

supervised release. Along that line, the court revoked his supervised released 

because, inter alia, he failed to make such payments.

Brewer also contends the court abused its discretion by failing to 

consider his financial obligations, specifically those to dependents. 

Nevertheless, the magistrate judge’s report, which the district court accepted, 

shows the consideration given Brewer’s desire to support his children. Brewer 

also offered to pay the remaining principal balance if the court would agree to 

waive any interest. While the court has the authority to alter or amend a 

 Case: 16-11707 Document: 00514200025 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/18/2017
No. 16-11707

4

restitution obligation, Brewer has not pointed to any authority permitting a 

court to reach such a settlement agreement with a prisoner regarding his 

financial obligations. 

Finally, Brewer maintains the court should have appointed counsel 

under the Criminal Justice Act. It states, in relevant part: any “person for 

whom counsel is appointed shall be represented at every stage of the 

proceedings . . . including ancillary matters appropriate to the proceedings”. 

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c). But, our court has stated that “ancillary matters refers 

to those involved in defending the principal criminal charge and not to postconviction proceedings”. United States v. Garcia, 689 F.3d 362, 364 (5th Cir. 

2012) (quoting United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cr. 1995)).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-11707 Document: 00514200025 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/18/2017