Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Craig PIPPS, also known as Lone Wolf, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-21
Citations: 605 F. App'x 404
Docket Number: No. 14-40317
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Craig PIPPS, also known as Lone Wolf, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 605
Pages: 404–405

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Craig PIPPS, also known as Lone Wolf, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40317
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2015.
John B. Ross, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Douglas Milton Barlow, Attorney, Barlow Law Firm, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Craig Pipps 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). Pipps has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Pipps's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Pipps'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. Pipps's request to relieve counsel and to proceed pro se is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.