opinion: Robert Lynn SMITH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
  No. 18940.
  United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
  Nov. 1, 1967.
  James A. Cochrane, Jr., Finch, Finch, Knehans & Cochrane, Cape Girardeau, Mo., filed typewritten application to withdraw as counsel in this case.'
  No response to such application was filed by counsel for the government.
  Before MATTHES and LAY, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  This matter comes before this court on application for leave to withdraw as counsel. Appellant's trial counsel has been appointed by this court to represent him in his appeal from a conviction under Title 50, App. U.S.C.A. § 462, while wilfully and knowingly failing and neglecting to report to his draft board pursuant to the order of his board. Counsel has filed a short statement of facts and states that he has “reluctantly concluded that there is no genuine issue or legal point which can be raised upon this appeal.” Counsel has filed with the court cases which he argues conclusively show that the evidence in the case was solely one of fact below and that there is no arguable point or issue in the record to support the appeal. Counsel informs the court that the appellant would like to have as much time as possible to submit on his own behalf points he feels should be considered by the court.
  We feel this matter is controlled by Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and Douglas v. People of State of California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed. 2d 811 (1963). As Mr. Justice Clark stated in Anders:
  “The constitutional requirement of substantial equality and fair process can only be attained where counsel acts in the role of an active advocate in behalf of his client, as opposed to that of amicus curise. The no-merit letter and the procedure it triggers does not reach that dignity. Counsel should, and can with honor and without conflict, be of more assistance to his client and to the court. His role as advocate requires that he support his client’s appeal to the best of his ability. Of course, if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. That request must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A copy of counsel’s brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses; the court — not counsel — then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. If it so finds it may grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal insofar as federal requirements are concerned, or proceed to a decision on the merits, if state law so requires. On the other hand, if it finds any of the legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal.”
  It is apparent that counsel has made a good faith and conscientious examination of the record and it is upon this examination that he seeks permission to withdraw. However, we feel that the permission to withdraw from a direct appeal must be accompanied with a brief referring to anything in the record that might be argued on appeal, as well as a statement from counsel or the appellant as to the points the indigent chooses to raise upon appeal. Only under those circumstances can the court decide whether the case is frivolous.
  The present application is of little help to either the court or the client. The cause of advocacy is not served to read a brief filed by appellant’s own counsel asserting the government’s position in the case. See Harders v. State of California, 373 F.2d 839 (9 Cir. 1967); Camodeo v. United States, 387 U.S. 575, 87 S.Ct. 2070, 18 L.Ed.2d 966.
  We are of the opinion that under the present status of the record appellant is entitled to counsel upon appeal and it would be of lesser value to appoint other counsel. Application for leave to withdraw is denied.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
  If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
  Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.