Task: songer_genresp2

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.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
Your task is to determine the nature of the second listed respondent. If there are more than two respondents and at least one of the additional respondents has a different general category from the first respondent, then consider the first respondent with a different general category to be the second respondent.

PER CURIAM.
Eugene Dobson was tried before a jury in two consolidated cases and convicted of the unlawful possession, forgery and uttering of United States Treasury Social Security checks which had been stolen from the mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 495 and 1708.
On appeal two contentions are made as grounds for reversal: (1) That it was error to allow a Government witness to identify the defendant in the court room when the witness had failed to identify the picture of the defendant from an array of photographs; and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of the jury.
The appeal came on to be considered pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 3(e).
Dobson was identified in the court room by Floyd Ernest Roach, owner of the Floyd Furniture Store at Knoxville, Tennessee, who cashed the stolen check. Mr. Roach testified that Dobson, had been in the store the previous evening looking at a television set. He returned the following day and stayed approximately ten minutes. He purchased a $104.95 television set, paying for it by signing and cashing a cheek which proved to be stolen and receiving $270.15 in change. Mr. Roach stated that he watched Dobson for several minutes while he was waiting outside following the transaction and that Dobson later returned to the store to use the telephone. This witness had a good opportunity to see Dobson and to become familiar with his features. Earlier in his testimony, however, Mr. Roach had selected a photograph of a different person as the one who cashed the check.
In United States v. Black, 412 F.2d 687 (6th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1018, 90 S.Ct. 583, 24 L.Ed.2d 509 (1970), this court held that where an eyewitness was unable to pick out a defendant’s picture from an array of photographs, this did not prevent the same witness from making a positive in-court identification. This court said, speaking through Judge Weick:
The fact that eye witnesses to an occurrence cannot make a positive identification of an individual from an examination of photographs of a number of persons, does not necessarily detract from the validity of their in-court identification where they see the individual in person. The weight to be given to their in-eourt identification is for the jury to determine. 412 F.2d at 689.
To like effect see United States v. O’Neal, 496 F.2d 368, 372 (6th Cir. 1974); United States v. Toney, 440 F.2d 590 (6th Cir. 1971).
We conclude that O’Neal, Black and Toney are controlling in the present case. Appellant’s first contention is without merit.
An examination of the transcript demonstrates that there was abundant evidence to support the verdict of the jury. It was stipulated that the checks were stolen and that the payees did not know Dobson. There was more than sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that Dobson possessed, forged and cashed the stolen checks.
In denying bail pending appeal, District Judge Robert L. Taylor included the following language in his order: “In the opinion of the court there is no legal basis for appeal of this case and it is taken for the purpose of delay.”
We conclude that it is manifest that the questions on which the decision of this cause depends are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument. Sixth Circuit Rule 8.
Affirmed.
. (e) Docket Control. In the interest of docket control, the chief judge may from time to time, in his discretion, appoint a panel or panels to review pending cases for appropriate assignment or disposition under Rules 7(e), 8 or 9 or any other rule of this court.

Question: What is the nature of the second listed respondent whose detailed code is not identical to the code for the first listed respondent?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: I