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 an appellant.

Opinion:
Charles E. JOHNSON, Charles A. Hunter, Rodger W. Osborne, and Thomas L. Wells, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellees, v. Mark A. LEVINE, Commissioner, Division of Correction, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; Ralph L. Williams, Warden, Maryland House of Correction; Robert J. Lally, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; and Marvin Mandel, Governor of the State of Maryland, Appellants. Warren C. NELSON, Earl A. Curreri, Carl Jackson, Prisoners of the Maryland Penitentiary, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. George H. COLLINS, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary; Mary Lou Bartram, Superintendent, Maryland Reception Diagnostic and Classification Center; Mark A. Levine, Commissioner, Maryland Division of Correction; Robert J. Lally, Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; Henry P. Turner, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission; Marvin Mandel, Governor of the State of Maryland; McLindsey Hawkins, Assistant Warden, Maryland Penitentiary; Sigmund Fine, Assistant Warden, Maryland Penitentiary; Maryland Division of Correction; Louis Goldstein, Member, Board of Public Works; William S. James, Member, Board of Public Works; D. J. Smith, Sergeant, Maryland Penitentiary, sued individually and in their official capacities, Appellees. Charles E. JOHNSON, Charles A. Hunter, Rodger W. Osborne, and Thomas L. Wells, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. Mark A. LEVINE, Commissioner, Division of Correction; Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; Ralph L. Williams, Warden, Maryland House of Correction; Robert J. Lally, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; and Marvin Mandel, Governor of the State of Maryland, Appellees. Warren C. NELSON, Earl A. Curreri, Carl Jackson, Prisoners of Maryland Penitentiary, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellees, v. George H. COLLINS, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary; Mary Lou Bartram, Superintendent, Maryland Reception Diagnostic and Classification Center; Mark A. Levine, Commissioner, Maryland Division of Correction; Robert J. Lally, Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; Henry P. Turner, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission; Marvin Mandel, Governor of the State of Maryland; McLindsey Hawkins, Assistant Warden, Maryland Penitentiary; Sigmund Fine, Assistant Warden, Maryland Penitentiary; Maryland Division of Correction; Louis Goldstein, Member, Board of Public Works; William S. James, Member, Board of Public Works; D. J. Smith, Sergeant, Maryland Penitentiary, sued individually and in their official capacities, Appellants.
Nos. 78-6416 to 78-6419.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Nov. 14, 1978.
Decided Dec. 13, 1978.
Stephen B. Caplis, Asst. Atty. Gen., George A. Nilson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md. (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. of Maryland and Clarence W. Sharp, Chief, Criminal Division, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellants.
Nevette Steele, Jr., Baltimore, Md. (Whiteford, Taylor, Preston, Trimble & Johnston, Baltimore, Md., on brief), Richard L. North, Baltimore, Md. (Mary S. Elcano, Lawrence B. Coshnear, Sandra D. Boteler, Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Richard G. Fish-man, Keystone Legal Services, Baltimore, Md., on brief), Paul D. Bekman, Baltimore, Md. (Kaplan, Heyman, Greenberg, Engleman & Belgrad, P.A., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellees.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER, BUTZNER, RUSSELL, WIDENER, HALL, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, sitting En Banc.
PER CURIAM:
These are appeals and cross-appeals from decisions of the District Court of Maryland in which it was concluded that the conditions in two penal institutions in Maryland were in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s command against cruel and unusual punishment. Johnson v. Levine, 450 F.Supp. 648 (D.Md.1978); Nelson v. Collins, 455 F.Supp. 727 (D.Md.1978).
In Hite v. Leeke, 564 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. 1977), we held that “double-celling,” the housing of two prisoners in a cell initially designed for single occupancy, was not itself a violation of the Constitution. It, of course, may be a relevant factor when other consequences of overcrowding create deprivations or impose unusual restrictions and disadvantages upon the prison population.
In their opinions, the district judges placed great emphasis upon “double-celling,” which was extensive in both institutions, but other deprivations were also shown. The “double-celling” was clearly a consequence of overcrowding, and the overcrowding had other consequences. The physical and personnel resources of both institutions were taxed. The overcrowding limited opportunities for recreation, for instruction and rehabilitation, complicated the maintenance of sanitation, required meal service in three separate shifts and probably contributed to a high level of violence and psychological injury to some prisoners. The medical facilities and staffs were also overtaxed, and on cross-appeals there is a complaint that medical care itself was constitutionally deficient. With the elimination of substantial overcrowding, however, the deficiencies of the medical facilities, staffs and services will be diminished.
Under the totality of all of the circumstances, we conclude that the district judges properly found a constitutional violation warranting judicial direction that the overcrowding be eliminated. Overcrowding, with all of its consequences, can reach such proportions that the impact of the aggregate effect amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. We believe that the district judges reasonably found that the point had been reached here. Hence, we affirm the entry of injunctive relief directed to elimination of the overcrowded conditions, and the denial of injunctive relief directed to specific areas of alleged deficiencies such as medical care.
The district judges directed accelerating steps for the elimination of overcrowding by April 1, 1979. Maryland, however, has come forward with a detailed plan involving the construction of a new facility, incorporating the previous planned conversion of another, and the early release of prisoners thought appropriate for release which will accomplish the objective of elimination of overcrowded conditions by June 1, 1980.
The district judges imposed a short compliance timetable. It was appropriate, of course, to emphasize the fact that the situation was serious, and to require that remedial steps should be undertaken promptly. The release of prisoners properly subject to parole may proceed apace, but we are convinced that the overcrowded conditions cannot be completely eliminated without the construction and utilization of a new facility, which Maryland proposes to have available by June 1, 1980. Since the constitutional violation here is not as extreme or as shocking as in some of the reported cases, and since Maryland’s plan is practical and reasonable and will achieve the required objective of elimination of overcrowding in its penal institutions, we think its plan and its schedule deserve judicial approval.
In addition to the claims respecting the general prison populations, in Johnson the court found the conditions of imprisonment in the Special Confinement Area, a section housing mentally disturbed prisoners, were so severe they constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The judge ordered the SCA closed as soon as the inmates could be moved to state mental institutions. In Nelson the court found extended confinement in the punitive isolation unit violated the Eighth Amendment. The judge imposed limitations on the use of the cells. We affirm these findings of constitutional deprivation and the grant of appropriate relief.
The findings of constitutional overcrowding are affirmed. The decree in Johnson, insofar as it affects the Special Confinement Area, and the decree in Nelson, insofar as it deals with punitive isolation, are both affirmed. The denial of specific relief in other respects is affirmed. The cases are remanded to the district court with instructions to fashion new decrees which will incorporate Maryland’s plan and its schedule for the elimination of overcrowding in the two penal institutions.
Judge Russell and Judge Widener dissent from the conclusion that a deficiency of constitutional proportion was shown. They reserve the right later to file an opinion expressing their views.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED.

Question: What is the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant?

Choices:
not
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachussets
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
New
New
New
North
North
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode
South
South
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin
Puerto
District
Guam
not
Panama

Answer: 20