Task: songer_r_fed

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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by John Paul Masters, Jr., hereinafter called petitioner, in forma pauperis from final order of the district court filed May 6, 1965, denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus without a hearing.
Petitioner was indicted by the federal grand jury on September 23, 1964, charged with breaking into a post office rural station with intent to commit larceny in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2115. Warrant issued and defendant was arrested on September 30. On October 2, he was brought before-the court at which time his rights were explained and counsel was appointed to represent him. On October 15, 1964, petitioner appeared before the court with counsel, and was arraigned, and entered a plea of not guilty. Petitioner was tried to a jury in January 1965, found guilty, and sentence of imprisonment was imposed. A timely appeal was taken from such conviction. We affirmed on October 7, 1965. Masters v. United States, 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 105.
The present petition for habeas corpus was filed on April 30, 1965, while petitioner was being held in custody of the defendant in the Polk County, Iowa, jail pursuant to his conviction and sentence. At the time of the filing of the petition and the dismissal thereof, his appeal from his conviction was pending.
Petitioner thus states the grounds upon which he bases his allegation that he is being held in custody unlawfully:
“(a) unlawful arraignment; Rule 5 U.S.C. states arraignment must be without delay; Mallory v. United States [354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479] interpretes (sic) unecessary (sic) delay (after 8 hrs.)
“(b) unlawfully deprived of rights to petition for writ of habeas corpus which is guaranteed by U. S. Constitution except in times of war.”
Petitioner sets out no facts to support his allegations. With respect to (a), he merely asserts that he was arrested on September 30, 1964, that he was brought before the court on October 2 and October 8, 1964, but that he was not arraigned until October 15, 1964. He makes no showing that such delay in arraignment was an undue delay under the circumstances nor does he show any prejudice to him resulted from such delay.
Federal Rules Criminal Procedure 5 does not apply to arrest upon indictment. Barrett v. United States, 8 Cir., 270 F.2d 772, 775; Boone v. United States, 6 Cir., 280 F.2d 911.
Petitioner’s direct appeal was pending at the time he filed his petition for the writ. Ordinarily resort cannot be had to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 or habeas corpus while an appeal from conviction is pending. Larson v. United States, 5 Cir., 275 F.2d 673, 679; see Haynes v. Harris, 8 Cir., 344 F.2d 463, 466.
In any event, the modest delay in arraignment absent any showing of prejudice does not fall in the category of violation of constitutional rights which subjects petitioner’s conviction to collateral attack.
Petitioner’s contention set out under (b) is likewise without merit. The present petition is upon a printed form supplied by the clerk. In answer to a question propounded in such form, petitioner states that he has submitted two previous petitions for habeas corpus but that they were returned to him unfiled with printed forms and instructions. The petitions previously tendered are not in the record. No appeal has been taken from the court’s refusal to consider the prior petitions. Petitioner in his present petition was in a position to assert any habeas corpus rights he might possess, and he is in no position to here complain of the refusal to file his prior petitions, the contents of which are not before us.
Petitioner in his brief upon appeal raises additional issues not included in his petition and not presented to or considered by the trial court, such as double jeopardy, violation of his constitutional right to equal protection and denial of reasonable bail. The short answer to such contentions is that issues not presented in the trial court cannot be considered upon appeal. Sutton v. Settle, 8 Cir., 302 F.2d 286, 288; Bartholomew v. United States, 8 Cir., 286 F.2d 779, 781.
A court is warranted in- dismissing a habeas corpus petition without hearing when the records and files conclusively show petitioner is entitled to no relief. Swepston v. United States, 8 Cir., 289 F.2d 166, 169; Kent v. United States, 1 Cir., 272 F.2d 795, 798.
We are satisfied that the files and records in this case conclusively show that petitioner is entitled to no relief. The court properly dismissed the petition for habeas corpus.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officialss"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 0