Task: songer_genresp2

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 second listed respondent. If there are more than two respondents and at least one of the additional respondents has a different general category from the first respondent, then consider the first respondent with a different general category to be the second respondent.

CHOY, Circuit Judge:
Douglas Earl Savage was convicted after a jury trial of bank robbery and using a firearm to commit a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 924(c). He was sentenced to fifteen year and five year terms to run concurrently. We affirm.
In April 1971, two men, wearing masks and brandishing firearms, entered a federally-insured bank in a small Oregon town, took about $29,000 and escaped in a 1969 Dodge station wagon. The key government witness, Margaret Casebeer, was the wife of one of the robbers. After charges against her were reduced, Mrs. Casebeer testified that she made the masks for Savage and her husband, was present when plans were discussed, and waited for the two men outside of town while the robbery took place. Mrs. Casebeer was also present when Savage discussed the robbery the next day. There was an abundance of corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution, including an admission by Savage to his mother that he had robbed the bank.
After his arrest and while he was in custody, Savage wrote a letter to Ronald Casebeer who was then confined in the federal penitentiary at .McNeil Island. The letter was intercepted by a prison security officer who made a photocopy of the original before forwarding it to Casebeer. The letter contained the ingredients of an alibi by Savage, attempting to shift the blame for the robbery to one Mayberry, and detailing Savage’s actions at the time of the robbery and subsequently.
At trial, a copy of the letter from Savage to Casebeer was introduced as evidence. The security officer testified that the letter had been copied exactly and Casebeer’s testimony from a previous trial indicated that the original had been • destroyed. Under these circumstances, the copy was held admissible.
Savage makes three contentions on this appeal: (1) that the photocopy of his letter to Casebeer was improperly admitted into evidence; (2) that his fourth amendment rights were violated when the letter was intercepted and photocopied by the prison security officer; and (3) failure to record the proceedings before the grand jury requires reversal.
To prove the terms of a writing, the original writing must be produced unless it is shown to be unavailable for some reason other than the fault of the proponent. The loss or destruction of an original writing is a longstanding basis for asserting unavailability. C. McCormick, Law of Evidence § 201 at 413 (1954); 4 J. Wigmore, On Evidence § 1193-98 (1972). See also Proposed Rules of Evidence for the U. S. District Courts and Magistrates, Rule 1004(1). Savage’s first contention fails since there was proof that the original was destroyed and the security guard testified that the copy was an exact reproduction.
Savage was in custody when he wrote his letter to Casebeer. He argues that opening and copying the letter was an unconstitutional invasion of his privacy. Individuals do not forfeit all their constitutional rights when they are taken into custody. A prisoner is entitled to the fourth amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Burns v. Wilkinson, 333 F.Supp. 94, 96 (W.D.Mo.1971); Palmigiano v. Travisono, 317 F.Supp. 776, 791 (D.R.I.1970). But under the standard enunciated in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), what society recognizes as a reasonable expectation of privacy is restricted when the individual asserting the expectation is incarcerated or in custody.
The view that prison authorities may examine the communications of a prisoner without infringing upon his constitutional rights has recently come under fire on both first and -.fourth amendment grounds. A three-judge court in Martinez v. Procunier, 354 F.Supp. 1092 (N.D.Calif.1973), prob. jur. noted, - U.S. -, 93 S.Ct. 3013, 37 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1973), held that a prisoner’s right to correspond was a fundamental right protected by the first amendment. The State of California’s regulations, which permitted the reading of incoming and outgoing mail, were held violative of the first amendment because they were not both reasonably and necessarily related to the advancement of some justifiable purpose of imprisonment or prison security. A similar practice was condemned on both first and fourth amendment grounds in Palmigiano, supra. We think that absent a showing of some justifiable purpose of imprisonment or prison security the interception and photocopying of the letter was violative of the fourth amendment and the letter should have been excluded as evidence. Here no such showing was made.
Despite the failure to exclude the letter, Savage’s conviction must stand. There was overwhelming evidence of Savage’s guilt and the illegally admitted evidence did not contribute to his conviction. Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 92 S.Ct. 2174, 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). Hence, the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor did the admission of the letter prejudice Savage since the contents were directed at exculpating him and did not contain any self-incriminatory statements.
We held in United States v. Price, 474 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1973) that upon a proper motion, failure to record grand jury proceedings absent a showing of a compelling government interest to be served by nonrecordation is an abuse of discretion by the district court. In the instant case, however, no request for recordation was made.
Affirmed.
. The principal authority for this view is found in Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15 (1919) and United States v. Wilson, 447 F.2d 1, 8 (9th Cir. 1971). Other circuits have expressed similar views. See Denson v. United States, 424 F.2d 329 (10th Cir. 1970), and cases cited therein Those decisions hold that prison discipline or security justify the examination of a prisoner’s communications. To that extent we are in complete agreement but add the proviso that justification must be demonstrated.
. See also Dreyer v. Jalet, 349 F.Supp. 452, 483 (S.D.Tex.1972); Lamar v. Kern, 349 F.Supp. 222, 225 (S.D.Tex.1972); Guajardo v. McAdams, 349 F.Supp. 211, 219 (S.D.Tex.1972).

Question: What is the nature of the second listed respondent whose detailed code is not identical to the code for 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: I