Task: songer_r_stid

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 a respondent.

LAY, Circuit Judge.
Michael Shane, an Iowa state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the federal district court.
Shane was charged with the crime of robbery with aggravation, in violation of Section 711.2 of the Iowa Code. His motion to suppress testimony concerning his pretrial identification and the introduction into evidence of guns seized during a warrant-less search of his motel room was denied by the state court after a hearing. Shane was convicted by a jury, and appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, raising as the only ground of error admission of the guns into evidence. The Iowa Supreme Court upheld the search and seizure of the guns as incident to a valid arrest and affirmed the conviction. State v. Shane, 255 N.W.2d 324 (Iowa 1977). Shane raised both the search and seizure and the pre-trial identification issues as grounds for federal habeas corpus relief. The district court found federal review of the search and seizure issue precluded under Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), and denied the claim that the pre-trial identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive on the merits. We affirm the denial of the petition. We do not, however, reach the identification issue, since we find the petitioner has failed to exhaust his state remedies as to this claim.
Shane did not present the pre-trial identification issue to the Iowa Supreme Court on his direct appeal. In addition the record makes clear that he has not filed an application for post-conviction relief in the state court. In the absence of clear showing that the Iowa Supreme Court will not entertain Shane’s due process claim if it is fairly presented, we may not disregard as futile the requirement that Shane exhaust state remedies. See Eaton v. Wyrick, 528 F.2d 477 (8th Cir. 1975); Cage v. Auger, 514 F.2d 1231 (8th Cir. 1975). Cf. Graham v. Hutto, 557 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1977).
We agree with the district court that Shane fully litigated the search and seizure issue at trial and on direct review. Relitigation of that issue in a federal forum is precluded under the doctrine of Stone v. Powell, supra. Contrary to the assertions of Shane’s counsel, federal courts do not have discretionary authority in a habeas corpus proceeding to correct a state court’s erroneous application of Fourth Amendment principles. Holmberg v. Parratt, 548 F.2d 745 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 969, 97 S.Ct. 2930, 53 L.Ed.2d 1066 (1977); Gates v. Henderson, 568 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1977) (en banc), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1038, 98 S.Ct. 775, 54 L.Ed.2d 787 (1978); Mack v. Cupp, 564 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1977). When it is clear that a state prisoner has been provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim in the state courts, he “may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.” Stone v. Powell, supra, 428 U.S. at 494, 96 S.Ct. at 3052. We find that Shane had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim and therefore do not reach its merits.
The district court’s judgment of dismissal is affirmed.
. The Iowa Post Conviction Procedure Act prohibits an application for relief based upon a ground not raised on appeal, unless the court finds “sufficient reason” for the failure to raise it or to raise it adequately. Iowa Code § 663A.8 (1975). Although the Iowa Supreme Court has construed the Act strictly in order to prevent its use as a substitute for appeal, Snyder v. State, 262 N.W.2d 574, 578 (Iowa 1978), it has found sufficient reason in the past for failure to raise an issue on direct appeal. See, e. g., State v. Boge, 252 N.W.2d 411 (Iowa 1977); Zacek v. Brewer, 241 N.W.2d 41 (Iowa 1976). Federal relief will not, of course, be precluded if the Iowa Supreme Court should decide that their review of the identification procedures issue is procedurally barred by Shane’s failure to raise it on direct appeal. Harris v. Brewer, 434 F.2d 166 (8th Cir. 1970). Such a decision would be relevant, however, to the federal question of whether Shane has deliberately bypassed state procedures. Cain v. State of Missouri, 518 F.2d 1180 (8th Cir. 1975).

Question: What is the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is a respondent?
年. not
数. Alabama
日. Alaska
的. Arizona
月. Arkansas
用. California
成. Colorado
名. Connecticut
时. Delaware
件. Florida
一. Georgia
请. Hawaii
中. Idaho
据. Illinois
码. Indiana
不. Iowa
新. Kansas
文. Kentucky
下. Louisiana
分. Maine
入. Maryland
人. Massachussets
功. Michigan
上. Minnesota
户. Mississippi
为. Missouri
间. Montana
号. Nebraska
取. Nevada
回. New
在. New
页. New
字. New
有. North
个. North
作. Ohio
示. Oklahoma
出. Oregon
是. Pennsylvania
失. Rhode
表. South
除. South
加. Tennessee
败. Texas
生. Utah
信. Vermont
类. Virginia
置. Washington
理. West
本. Wisconsin
息. Wyoming
行. Virgin
定. Puerto
改. District
市. Guam
期. not
以. Panama
Answer:

Answer: 不