Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Steven McGREW, Sr., also known as Big Steve, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-25
Citations: 644 F. App'x 311
Docket Number: Nos. 14-10142, 14-10150
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Steven McGREW, Sr., also known as Big Steve, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 644
Pages: 311–312

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Steven McGREW, Sr., also known as Big Steve, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 14-10142, 14-10150
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 25, 2016.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Brandon Nelson McCarthy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven McGrew, Sr., Huntsville, TX, pro se.
Douglas C. Greene, Sr., Esq., Greene Law Firm, Arlington, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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 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 with draw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir, R. 42.2. McGreVs motion to proceed pro se on appeal is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).
Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47,5.4.