opinion: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alfred Hill DISK, Jr., Appellant.
  No. 71-1712.
  United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
  Argued Dec. 6, 1971.
  Decided Jan. 28, 1972.
  Stewart C. Economou, Alexandria, Va. (Court-appointed counsel) [Evans & Economou, Alexandria, Va., on brief], for appellant.
  Justin W. Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
  Before BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and CRAVEN and FIELD, Circuit Judges.
  FIELD, Circuit Judge:
  This appeal from a conviction of armed robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), presents two primary issues. First, appellant contends that he was denied his right to counsel of his own choice and, second, he charges that certain photographic pretrial identification procedures, as well as a post-indictment lineup, were so impermissibly suggestive that they amounted to a denial of due process of law. Additionally, appellant charges the District Court with error in denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine the constitutionality of these pretrial identification procedures.
  With respect to the first issue, our examination of the record convinces us that this contention of the appellant is without merit. It appears that appellant was arraigned on January 18, 1971, and upon a showing that he had no available resources with which to employ an attorney the court appointed counsel for him. Appointed counsel worked diligently in preparing the defense, but on March 22, 1971, only three days prior to the original trial date, the appointed counsel asked leave to withdraw, advising the Court that appellant had obtained the necessary money to employ counsel and desired to retain an attorney of his own choice. It developed, however, that the attorney selected by appellant would enter an appearance only upon assurances by the Court that a continuance of the trial would be granted. This the Court declined to do. However, the case was later continued for trial until April 23, 1971, and on March 29, 1971, appellant again appeared without counsel and once again indicated an attorney of his choice who would undertake his representation upon the condition that a continuance be granted should counsel deem it necessary. The Court again declined to countenance such a conditional appearance and finally supplied appellant a list of three qualified attorneys from which appellant selected one who entered his appearance of record on April 1, 1971. Upon these facts, we are of the opinion that the Court acted properly in declining to permit appellant to require that the Court arrange its trial calendar to await the convenience of the two attorneys selected by appellant. Indeed, the record fails to indicate that any firm arrangements had been made with respect to the employment of either of these attorneys prior to their conditional offers of representation. The attorney who was ultimately retained by appellant provided him with an able and vigorous defense and under the circumstances we perceive no abuse of discretion by the District Judge. See United States v. Grow, 394 F.2d 182 (4 Cir. 1968).
  The second issue relative to alleged constitutional infirmities incident to the pretrial photographic identification and the lineup involves the testimony of Sybil Johnson who made an in-court identification of the appellant. Mrs. Johnson was the sole employee of the bank who was present at the time of the robbery and who opened the safe under intimidation by the robber. She had met Lisk some two years prior to the robbery and had no difficulty in recognizing him as the subject of the photographs which were displayed to her shortly after the robbery. However, with commendable caution, she declined to identify Lisk as the robber until she had an opportunity to observe him in person in a disguise similar to that worn by him at the time of the crime. At the lineup Lisk was represented by counsel and Mrs. Johnson had no hesitancy in identifying him on that occasion as the individual who robbed the bank. While counsel for appellant stresses the fact that through an inadvertence Mrs. Johnson had an opportunity to observe Lisk at the lineup before he put on the disguise, under the circumstances of this case we do not view this as posing any substantial issue relative to the validity of the lineup. In any event, in the light of all of the evidence we conclude that the in-court identification of Lisk by Mrs. Johnson was proper and that any infirmities with respect to either the photographic identification or the lineup fall within the area of harmless error. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1966); United States v. Cunningham, 423 F.2d 1269 (4 Cir. 1970). We are further of the opinion that in the context of this case the District Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying appellant’s motion for an evidentiary hearing out of the presence of the jury with respect to the pretrial identification procedures. See United States v. Cranson et al., 453 F.2d 123 (4 Cir. 1971).
  We find no denial of constitutional rights or reversible error and accordingly the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
  Affirmed.
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.