     Case: 14-10142      Document: 00513439683         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/25/2016




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                                     No. 14-10142
                                   c/w No. 14-10150
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                  Summary Calendar                              FILED
                                                                          March 25, 2016
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                       Clerk

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STEVEN MCGREW, SR., also known as Big Steve,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:12-CR-175-19


Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Steven McGrew, Sr., has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
McGrew has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of McGrew’s claims of ineffective assistance of



       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 14-10142    Document: 00513439683     Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/25/2016


                                 No. 14-10142
                               c/w No. 14-10150

counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to
collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
      We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as McGrew’s response. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused
from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See
5TH CIR. R. 42.2. McGrew’s motion to proceed pro se on appeal is DENIED.
See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).




                                       2
