With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and the construction the parties gave the language in order to determine the intent of the contracting parties.” Id. The insurance contract here shows that Worm Shack was the only insured and Cook was not a loss payee. Both parties also stipulated to the former. Therefore, based on the plain and unambiguous language of the insurance contract, Cook was not a direct third-party beneficiary unde gment against Worm Shack and dismiss the appeal as to Cook. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART. 1 . Although both Cook and Worm Shack appealed, we have already held that the notice of appeal was ineffective as to Worm Shack, since it was a corporate entity not represented by counsel, and we have dismissed it from this appeal. See Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Trinity also filed counterclaims against Cook

A: holding that nonlawyer proceeding pro se could not represent his children
B: holding a person who is not a member of the bar of any court  may appear pro se but is not qualified to appear in the district court or in this court as counsel for others
C: holding that class representatives cannot appear pro se
D: holding that a corporation cannot appear pro se even when the person seeking to represent it is the president and major stockholder
D.