Task: songer_r_state

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 "state governments, their 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 from a dismissal without hearing of a habeas corpus petition filed by petitioner-appellant. Petitioner had sought to raise a number of issues, of which the only one which appears to present a federal constitutional question is his claim that he was deprived of Fourth Amendment rights by the admission of evidence secured by an illegal search and seizure. In this regard he relies upon Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).
In dismissing this petition, the District Judge said:
“Again we must repeat, as we did in the former petition filed in this Court, that nowhere does it appear that the petitioner has exhausted the appeal remedies available to him in the State Courts, in fact, nowhere in the record supplied to us by the petitioner does he allege that he ever appealed from his conviction in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Further, we agree with the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in the habeas corpus proceeding heretofore pursued before it that the questions propounded by petitioner are not cognizable under habeas corpus.
“Petitioner presents no new ground not heretofore presented and determined in this Court and in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and, therefore, comes within the provisions of Section 2244, Title 28 United States Code Annotated.”
This has a very familiar ring, since petitioner in the current appeal was the petitioner in Saulsbury v. Green, 318 F.2d 320 (C.A.6, 1963), which is the leading case in this Circuit on the question of Ohio’s postconviction remedies. In that case we held that Saulsbury had not exhausted his State remedies because he had not been to the State Supreme Court on habeas corpus or filed a motion for leave to take a delayed appeal.
In the interval, it appears clear that he has done the former. See Saulsbury v. Green, 175 Ohio St. 433, 195 N.E(2d 787.
It likewise appears that the Supreme Court of Ohio has given him an evidentiary hearing on his Fourth Amendment claim and has entered findings of fact adverse to him. In the cited opinion the Supreme Court of Ohio has said:
“Petitioner as his first ground for release argues that he was convicted upon evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure. From the evidence introduced at the hearing, it appears that federal officers, suspecting narcotics were being sold, gave money to an individual who went to petitioner’s apartment and purchased marijuana cigarettes. The agents had listed the serial numbers of the money. When the informer came out of the building, he turned the cigarettes over to the agents and they in company with city detectives went to petitioner’s apartment. They were admitted by him and searched the apartment and found no narcotics but did find part of the marked money in petitioner’s clothes. Upon this evidence, petitioner was prosecuted under the state law.
“It is only evidence that is obtained by an illegal search that is inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In the present situation, the officers had good cause to believe that a felony had been committed. The search was pursuant to a lawful arrest. It has long been held that a search pursuant to a lawful arrest is reasonable, and evidence obtained thereby is admissible. Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399; and Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327.” Saulsbury v. Green, supra at 433-434,195 N.E.2d at 787-788.
It thus appears that the only federal constitutional issue presented to the District Judge has been presented to the Ohio Supreme Court and has been adjudicated against petitioner upon the merits.
It would be an exercise in futility to require petitioner to go back to this same court with a petition for leave to appeal.
However, as an alternative ground for dismissal of petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus, the Ohio Supreme Court also held that Mapp v. Ohio, supra, was not applicable retroactively. This view has now been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States. Link-letter v. Walker, 85 S.Ct. 1731 (1965) (Decided June 7, 1965); United States ex rel. Angelet v. Fay, 333 F.2d 12 (C.A. 2, 1964), aff’d, 85 S.Ct. 1750 (1965) (Decided June 7,1965).
Petitioner herein was convicted and sentenced in June of 1956. He did not appeal. Mapp v. Ohio was decided June 19, 1961.
The dismissal of the petition is affirmed. Linkletter v. Walker, supra.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1