Task: songer_genresp1

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.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
Your task is to determine the nature of the first listed respondent.

GOLDBERG, Judge:
Defendant Flores was charged with knowingly possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 841. In a trial to the court, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to four years imprisonment, to be followed by a special parole term of three years. Finding the government’s evidence insufficient to support the conviction, we reverse.
The facts of this case are very simple. Flores was a passenger in a pickup truck stopped at the Falfurrias checkpoint. The Border Patrol had previously been alerted to the possibility that a truck matching the description of the one in which Flores was a passenger might contain marijuana. The officers approached the truck and questioned the driver and Flores regarding their citizenship. Although the officers were satisfied that both occupants were United States citizens, they directed the driver to pull over to the secondary inspection lane, apparently because Officer Tidball had noticed that the camper attached to the pickup had what appeared to be a false compartment in the ceiling.
Instead of pulling over to the secondary inspection lane, the driver of the pickup sped away from the checkpoint. Officer Simpson gave chase at over 100 m. p. h. and finally caught up with the truck when it pulled off to the side of the road. The defendant jumped out of the truck and ran. Officer Simpson pursued him on foot but failed to catch him. A rancher later found Flores in his pasture and brought him to the checkpoint, where Flores was arrested. The driver of the truck was never apprehended; the truck itself was later searched and found to contain 175 lbs. of marijuana.
The defendant made no inculpatory statements at the checkpoint, upon arrest, or at any subsequent time. Nor did he take the stand during the trial. It is undisputed that he was the passenger and not the driver of the pickup. No evidence was introduced by the government to show any relationship between Flores and the driver. The marijuana was not visible to Flores at any time.
Although the law is clear that evidence of Flores’ flight from the truck was both relevant and admissible on the issue of his knowledge that the truck contained marijuana, relevance and admissibility do not equal sufficiency. We would have to take a flying leap to sustain this conviction which is based on flight alone; no case cited in the government’s brief or uncovered by our research supports the proposition that one may be made a jailbird simply for having taken wing. Yet this is all the government has shown Flores to have done.
In United States v. Christian, 505 F.2d 94 (5th Cir. 1974), we sustained the convictions of two defendants. The first defendant was in physical control of a motorboat which he knew to contain contraband; the other defendant was a passenger. In sustaining the conviction of the passenger, the court did not even take into account the waterborne attempt to elude the customs intercept operation by high speed flight. Instead, the court noted that thirty-seven sacks of marijuana had been stored in plain view in the cabin of the vessel in which the defendant had been a passenger for eight days. A permissible inference of knowledge could certainly have been drawn from this evidence. Moreover, the court attached probative value to the length of the voyage and the passenger’s relationship to the co-defendant, her husband, who was in control of the vessel. In contrast, here the government admits that the marijuana was not visible to Flores and has offered no evidence regarding the relationship, if any, between Flores and the driver. Nor has the government offered any inculpatory statement by the defendant to indicate his knowledge. Cf. United States v. Canada, 459 F.2d 687 (5th Cir. 1972) (defendant, a passenger in a car containing a large amount of marijuana, states that the marijuana came from Mexico, proving his prior knowledge of its presence).
Apart from the evidence of flight, the case at bar seems most nearly akin to United States v. Montoya, 402 F.2d 847 (5th Cir. 1968), in which our court reversed the conviction of a defendant who was a passenger in a pickup truck loaded with marijuana. The court noted that Montoya made no incriminating statements, that he neither drove nor owned the truck, that he had neither marijuana nor a weapon upon his person, and that the marijuana was not readily visible to a passenger in the truck. Id. at 850. As to each of these possibly probative matters, the government’s case against Flores is identical to that against Montoya, i. e., non-existent. None of the additional circumstances present in similar cases in which convictions were affirmed were proven here. See United States v. Diamond, 471 F.2d 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 932, 93 S.Ct. 2751, 37 L.Ed.2d 161 (1973) (defendant under surveillance crosses and recrosses border into Mexico; as driver in control of vehicle he refuses to pull over on police request; strong smell of marijuana); United States v. Christophe, 470 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1972) (defendant observed placing valise containing heroin into trunk of car; refuses to halt in response to sirens; makes false exculpatory statements to FBI agents); United States v. Rich, 262 F.2d 415 (2d Cir. 1959) (defendant observed picking up narcotics from supplier; drives car into pillar when FBI agents identify themselves).
To sustain Flores’ conviction we would have to hold that his flight from the truck, driven by someone else and pursued by the police at high speed, raises such strong inferences of guilty knowledge that it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. United States v. Haggins, 545 F.2d 1009 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Casey, 540 F.2d 811 (5th Cir. 1976). We refuse to so hold. We will not hypothesize guilt. The presumption of innocence will not be exorcised by exercises in speculation.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the district court is reversed.
REVERSED.
. The record is absolutely silent on the recovery of the truck and the discovery of the marijuana. It is stipulated, however, that the marijuana introduced into evidence was taken from the truck. Flores challenges the admissibility of the marijuana. In view of our conclusion that the government’s case against Flores was insufficient even with the marijuana evidence, we need not rule on the defendant’s fourth amendment claim.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed respondent?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: C