Philip R. Horowitz, appointed counsel for Louis Askew in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In a pro se response to counsel’s motion to withdraw, Askew requests the appointment of substitute counsel. Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Askew’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. Askew’s pro se motion for substitute counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Young, 482 F.2d 993, 995 (5th Cir. 1973).