FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ULICES MENDOZA GUIZAR,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10159

D.C. No. 1:08-CR-00225-LJO

Eastern District of California, 

Fresno

ORDER

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Ulices Mendoza Guizar appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 46-

month sentence for manufacturing marijuana plants, and aiding and abetting, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Mendoza Guizar’s counsel has filed a

motion to withdraw and a brief stating there are no grounds for relief. We deny

without prejudice the motion to withdraw and order additional briefing.

Counsel's brief summarizes the district court proceedings, recites the facts of

the case, and requests that this court independently review the record because

counsel was unable to identify any nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The brief does

not satisfy the requirements set forth in Anders. 

FILED

JUL 12 2010

MOLLY C. DW YER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-10159

If appointed counsel concludes, after a conscientious review of the record,

that an appeal is frivolous, Anders requires counsel to: (1) advise the court that

there are no nonfrivolous issues on appeal; (2) file a motion requesting permission

to withdraw as counsel of record; and (3) file an opening brief “referring to

anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” Id. at 744. The

Anders brief should present the strongest arguments in favor of the client supported

by citations to the record and applicable legal authority. See Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 81 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 (1988); see also

9th Cir. R. 4-1(c)(6). 

Counsel did not comply with the third requirement. This requirement is

important because it affords the indigent defendant “that advocacy which a

nonindigent defendant is able to obtain[,]” and it enables “the court to pursue all

the more vigorously its own review because of the ready references not only to the

record, but also to the legal authorities as furnished it by counsel.’” Anders, 386

U.S. at 745. This “requirement was designed to provide the appellate courts with a

basis for determining whether appointed counsel have fully performed their duty to

support their clients’ appeals to the best of their ability.” See McCoy, 486 U.S. at

439.
3 09-10159

The brief submitted by Mendoza Guizar’s counsel identifies no potentially

arguable issues. Accordingly, we deny without prejudice the motion to withdraw

and order further briefing. If, after a conscientious review of the record, counsel

concludes the appeal is frivolous, he shall so advise the court, file a motion to

withdraw, and file an opening brief “referring to anything in the record that might

arguably support the appeal.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. If counsel concludes that

the appeal is not frivolous, then Anders does not apply, and the appeal will proceed

on counsel's arguments. 

Counsel is directed to serve and file a supplemental brief within 45 days of

the date of this order. Mendoza Guizar may file a pro se supplemental brief raising

any issues by October 7, 2010. Appellee shall file the answering brief by

November 6, 2010, and the optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the

answering brief.