opinion: Robert Lee MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
  No. 8034.
  United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
  April 7, 1965.
  Charles L. Saunders, Jr., Denver, Colo., for appellant.
  Lewis 0. Campbell, Asst. U. S. Atty. (John Quinn, U. S. Atty., with him on the brief), for appellee.
  Before PICKETT, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  A jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico found appellant Martinez guilty of four counts charging narcotic offenses, and the court sentenced him to 6-year concurrent terms. He did not appeal. While a prisoner at La Tuna, Texas, he filed a habeas corpus petition in the sentencing court which treated it as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and denied it without a hearing. Reversal is sought on the ground that a hearing should have been held.
  The record and the order of the trial court show that the appellant was arrested on a warrant, was brought before a United States commissioner, was tried by a jury, did not testify in his own behalf, and was represented by retained counsel both before the commissioner and in the jury trial. No showing is made of the use at the trial of any illegally seized evidence or of any incriminating statements of the accused after arrest.
  The papers filed by the appellant in the trial court defy intelligent analysis. Various legal principles are asserted without attempt to relate them to the facts of the case. An application for post-conviction relief, whether it be under § 2255 or by way of habeas corpus, which states bald conclusions unsupported by allegation of fact is legally insufficient and may be denied without a hearing.
  In this court appointed counsel urges that the trial court should have appointed counsel for appellant and required that he be furnished with a trial transcript. A federal prisoner is entitled to no such exploratory aids on the basis of the showing made here. In a collateral attack on a judgment in a criminal case, the prisoner must allege some factual basis for the relief sought. This appellant has not done so. If a legally sufficient motion is subsequently filed, it should not be considered repetitious.
  Affirmed.
  . Stephens v. United States, 10 Cir., 246 F.2d 607. See also Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 19, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148.
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.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama