ORDER

LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge.

This matter comes before the court on the defendant's pro se motion for extension of time to object and to negotiate (docket no. 161) and pro se motion for reconsideration (docket no. 162). The defendant filed both motions on August 26, 2014.

The defendant filed both motions while represented by counsel. This is impermissible. The defendant does not have a constitutional right to hybrid representation, that is, the defendant must either choose to proceed pro se or choose to utilize the full assistance of counsel who would present his defense. See United States v. Swinney, 970 F.2d 494, 498 (8th Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Lewis, 738 F.2d 916, 924 (8th Cir. 1984) (stating "[a] defendant in a criminal case does not have a constitutional right both to represent himself and to be represented by counsel" (citing United States v. Olson, 576 F.2d 1267, 1270 (8th Cir. 1978))); United States v. Williams, 534 F.2d 119, 123 (8th Cir. 1976) (stating "a criminal defendant has a right to represent himself or, alternatively, to be represented by counsel" (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975))); cf. United States v. Blum, 65 F.3d 1436, 1443 n.2 (8th Cir. 1995) (noting it is Eighth Circuit policy to refuse to consider pro se filings when a party is represented by counsel (citing Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 472 (8th Cir. 1994))). Because he is currently being represented by F. Montgomery Brown, the court need not address the instant motions. Accordingly, the defendant's pro se motion for extension of time to object and to negotiate (docket no. 161) and pro se motion for reconsideration (docket no. 162) are denied without prejudice. If counsel deems it appropriate to have the court address the issues raised by the defendant, counsel is directed to submit a proper motion. The clerk's office is directed to send a copy of this order to the defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.