Task: songer_realapp

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.
Your task is to determine whether or not the formally listed appellants in the case are the "real parties." That is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake? (e.g., in some appeals of adverse habeas corpus petition decisions, the respondent is listed as the judge who denied the petition, but the real parties are the prisoner and the warden of the prison) (another example would be "Jones v A 1990 Rolls Royce" where Jones is a drug agent trying to seize a car which was transporting drugs - the real party would be the owner of the car). For cases in which an independent regulatory agency is the listed appellant, the following rule was adopted: If the agency initiated the action to enforce a federal rule or the agency was sued by a litigant contesting an agency action, then the agency was coded as a real party. However, if the agency initially only acted as a forum to settle a dispute between two other litigants, and the agency is only listed as a party because its ruling in that dispute is at issue, then the agency is considered not to be a real party. For example, if a union files an unfair labor practices charge against a corporation, the NLRB hears the dispute and rules for the union, and then the NLRB petitions the court of appeals for enforcement of its ruling in an appeal entitled "NLRB v Widget Manufacturing, INC." the NLRB would be coded as not a real party. Note that under these definitions, trustees are usually "real parties" and parents suing on behalf of their children and a spouse suing on behalf of their injured or dead spouse are also "real parties."

PER CURIAM.
Larry Nelson Bode was charged in an eleven-count indictment with making fraudulent claims against the United States for income tax refunds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287. He was convicted on all eleven counts. He was sentenced to consecutive five-year prison terms on Counts 1 and 2, a five-year term on Counts 3-11 to run concurrently with the sentences imposed on Counts 1 and 2, and, on Count 11, a fiveyeár probation term to commence at the end of his incarceration.
Bode appeals his conviction, arguing that: (1) the district court erred in refusing to suppress a witness’s in-court identification of the defendant, and (2) the court erred in admitting Internal Revenue Service transcripts of the accounts in which the fraudulent refund claims at issue were made. After carefully reviewing the record and the briefs on appeal, we conclude that these contentions are without merit.
The district court conducted a hearing to consider Bode’s motion to suppress the testimony of William McGeehan, a post office employee who identified the defendant as the person who had leased the post office box to which the fraudulent refunds were to be sent. The defendant contended that McGeehan’s identification was based on an allegedly impermissible photo display conducted by an IRS agent two months before trial. In ruling on the motion, the court expressly considered those factors which the Supreme Court established in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), as indicative of the reliability vel non of a witness’s identification. The court overruled the suppression motion, finding that McGeehan’s identification of the defendant was independently made and was “not brought about by any improper display of photograph or photographs.” This conclusion is well supported by the record.
It is also clear from the record that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the IRS account transcripts. This evidence was neither irrelevant nor highly prejudicial.
Affirmed.

Question: Are the formally listed appellants in the case the "real parties", that is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake?
A. both 1st and 2nd listed appellants are real parties (or only one appellant, and that appellant is a real party)
B. the 1st appellant is not a real party
C. the 2nd appellant is not a real party
D. neither the 1st nor the 2nd appellants are real parties
E. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A