opinion: Charles Quenn BLACKWELL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
  No. 29376
  Summary Calendar.
  United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
  July 7, 1970.
  Charles Q. Blackwell, Jr., pro se.
  U. S. Atty., Walker P. Johnson, Jr., Macon, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
  Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM:
  Charles Quenn Blackwell, Jr. appeals pro se from the denial of his motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S. C. § 2255. The District Court denied Blackwell’s motion without a hearing. We conclude that a hearing was not necessary to the disposition of Blackwell’s claims and affirm the judgment of the District Court.
  In 1967, Blackwell was convicted in two separate cases (Nos. 3060 and 3061) in the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. In No. 3060, he was convicted on five counts of an indictment. Count one charged him with conspiring to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and to travel in interstate commerce to carry on the unlawful activity of arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952. The other four counts charged violations of sections 1341 and 1952. Blackwell was sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. In No. 3061, Blackwell was convicted of violating section 1341. On this conviction he was sentenced to a two-and-one-half-year term of imprisonment, this sentence to run concurrently with the sentences imposed in No. 3060. Both convictions were affirmed on Blackwell’s direct appeal to this Court. Blackwell V. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 405 F. 2d 625.
  In his section 2255 motion, Blackwell alleges: (1) that he never entered into a conspiracy; (2) that he never was a party to an agreement to perform the unlawful acts charged; (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (4) that he was placed twice in jeopardy by being tried for three offenses that, in actuality, were but one offense; (5) that he was forced to present evidence incriminating him to the grand jury under compulsion of subpoena; and (6) that an FBI agent testified at trial regarding a coerced oral confession made by Blackwell, in the absence of a prior judicial determination of the voluntariness of that confession.
  Blackwell’s first five allegations were raised by him on his direct appeal, were considered by this Court, and were decided adversely to petitioner. Having carefully reviewed the records in this case, we conclude that to permit Blackwell to initiate a collateral attack on grounds already rejected by this Court would merely result in the purposeless duplication of the review process. We hold, therefore, that the District Court did not err in refusing to redetermine these five issues. E. g., Hayes v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 416 F.2d 23. See also Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963); Houston v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 419 F.2d 30, 32.
  In his final allegation, Blackwell claims that he was coerced into making an oral confession in that an FBI agent continued to question him after petitioner refused to sign a Miranda warning-and-waiver form. Section 2255 requires the District Court to grant a hearing on a petitioner’s motion “unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” E. g., Aeby v. United States, 5 Cir., 1970, 425 F.2d 717. Nowhere in the records of either No. 3060 or No. 3061 is mention made of any confession given by Blackwell to an FBI agent. In No. 3060, no FBI agent testified at all. In No. 3061, the only FBI agent who did testify not once referred to Blackwell or any statements made by Blackwell. Petitioner, therefore, has no basis for contending that his constitutional rights were violated by the introduction as evidence of a coerced confession. His motion and the files and records of this case show conclusively that he was not entitled to relief in the District Court. An evidentiary hearing on his motion, therefore, was not required. E. g., Gill v. United States, 5 Cir., 1970, 421 F.2d 1353, 1355; Holland v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 213. We have fully considered Blackwell’s other contentions on this appeal and find them to be without merit.
  Affirmed.
  . We have concluded on the merits that this case is of the character that does not justify oral argument. Therefore, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this action in writing. 5 Cir. R. 18.
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.