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.

Opinion:
Patrick Wayne KERR, Appellant, v. Fred FINKBEINER, Warden; Gerald Baliles, Attorney General of Virginia, Appellees.
No. 84-6367.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth - Circuit.
Argued Jan. 7, 1985.
Decided March 18, 1985.
A. Strode Brent, Jr., Fairfax, Va. (Robert C. Whitestone, Whitestone, Rodway, Phillips, Brent, Young & Merril, P.C., Fairfax, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Todd E. LePage, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va. (Gerald L. Baldes, Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees.
Before HALL, ERVIN and SNEEDEN, Circuit Judges.
K.K. HALL, Circuit Judge.
Patrick Wayne Kerr appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.
I.
In April, 1979, fugitive warrants were issued in Chowan County, North Carolina, against Kerr, who was then incarcerated in Chowan County. The warrants charged Kerr with robbery, breaking and entering, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and petit larceny, all of which occurred in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, on January 17,1979. Kerr transmitted a “Motion and Request for a Speedy Trial Upon Pending Charge or for Dismissal” of the charges contained in the fugitive warrants to the Spotsylvania County Circuit Court. The motion was filed on May 21, 1979.
Kerr was transported to Virginia from North Carolina on September 25, 1979. A preliminary hearing was set for November 7, 1979, but, upon request of Kerr’s attorney, the hearing was rescheduled for November 28, 1979. On that date, Kerr formally waived his right to a preliminary hearing and consented to the proceedings being by direct indictment by a grand jury. On January 21, 1980, he was indicted by a grand jury for robbery, breaking and entering, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and petit larceny.
On May 19, 1980, Kerr moved to dismiss the indictment against him, claiming that he had not been tried within 180 days of his May 21, 1979, motion pursuant to the provisions of Article 111(a) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (the “IADA”). Kerr’s motion to dismiss the indictment was denied, and on May 22, 1980, upon trial to the court, he was found guilty as charged. Kerr was sentenced to serve a total of twenty-nine years in the Virginia State Penitentiary, sixteen years of which were to run concurrently with other sentences previously imposed upon him. His subsequent petition for a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Virginia was denied.
Kerr then petitioned the federal district court for habeas corpus relief, alleging that he was not tried within the 180-day time limit prescribed by the IADA. Respondents moved to dismiss Kerr’s petition on the ground that, inter alia, it did not state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court agreed and granted respondents’ motion to dismiss. From this dismissal, Kerr appeals.
II.
On appeal, Kerr contends that his claim that he was not tried within the time limits set forth in the IADA was cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We disagree.
In Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974), the Supreme Court held that the appropriate inquiry to determine if habeas relief is warranted is “whether the claimed error of law [is] ‘a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice,’ and whether ‘[i]t ... presents] exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent.’ ” Id. at 346, 94 S.Ct. at 2305 (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428, 82 S.Ct. 468, 471, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962) ). In Bush v. Muncy, we considered whether an alleged violation of Article IV(e) of the IADA, which requires that a prisoner be tried on all pending charges on which detainers have been lodged before being returned to his original place of incarceration, was grounds for habeas corpus relief. Applying the Davis criteria, we concluded that such a violation did “not constitute a fundamental defect entitling a petitioner to habeas relief under section 2254.” Bush, 659 F.2d at 408. However, we specifically refrained from deciding whether an alleged violation of Article III(a)'s 180-day time provision presents a cognizable claim. Id. at 408 n. 4.
A review of the other circuits which have ruled on the cognizability of federal habeas corpus claims based on alleged violations of the IADA indicates that the courts are divided. Although the Third and Ninth Circuits have held that such claims are cognizable under the provisions for federal habeas relief, we agree with the decisions of the First, Second, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits, which have concluded that IADA claims do not constitute fundamental defects and are not generally cognizable under federal habeas corpus provisions absent a showing of prejudice.
Specifically, we hold that the violation of the 180-day time provision of Article 111(a) alleged in this case does not constitute a fundamental defect entitling Kerr to relief under § 2254, because Kerr has failed to show any prejudice arising out of the alleged violation. Nor does this case “ ‘present exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent.’ ” Davis, 417 U.S. at 346, 94 S.Ct. at 2305.
The IADA was designed, in part, to protect prisoners against whom detainers are issued from being denied prison privileges and rehabilitation efforts. See United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978). As Kerr has introduced no evidence indicating that he has suffered any prejudice in his incarceration or in defending against the charges against him, we hold that, under Davis, the alleged violation of Article 111(a) of the IADA is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
. Article 111(a) of the IADA provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of a party State, and whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in any other party State any untried indictment, information, or complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner, he shall be brought to trial within one hundred and eighty days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer’s jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment, information, or complaint: Provided, That, for good cause shown in open court, the prisoner or his counsel being present, the court having jurisdiction of the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance.
18 U.S.C.App. § 2, art. 111(a) (1982).
. At the outset we note that the parties to this action have assumed that the fugitive warrants issued against Kerr while he was incarcerated in Chowan County, North Carolina, served as a detainer within the meaning of the IADA. Although the IADA does not define the word "detainer,” the legislative history of the IADA states that "[a] detainer is a notification filed with the institution in which a prisoner is serving a sentence advising that he is wanted to face pending criminal charges in another jurisdiction.” H.R. Rep. No. 91-1018, S.Rep. No. 91-1356, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 3, reprinted in 1970 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4864, 4865 (emphasis added).
The record in this case is not clear with respect to whom the fugitive warrants were delivered and how Kerr received notice of the warrants. A review of the warrants shows that they were issued in Chowan County, North Carolina, by the Clerk of Superior Court of that County on the basis of arrest warrants received from Spotsylvania County, Virginia. The fugitive warrants were addressed “TO THE SHERIFF OF CHOWAN COUNTY OR OTHER LAWFUL OFFICER OF NORTH CAROLINA.” They listed the felonies for which Kerr was wanted in Spotsylvania County and commanded the recipients) "to arrest the said PATRICK W. KERR, and keep him safely in order that he may be dealt with as law directs, UNTIL SAID DEFENDANT IS TURNED OVER TO The Commonwealth of Virginia.”
The question of whether the fugitive warrants issued against Kerr served as a detainer has not been raised in this case. Therefore, we do not address the issue, but merely assume, for the purposes of this opinion only, that they did function as a detainer.
. As we stated in Bush v. Muncy, 659 F.2d 402 (4th Cir.1981), although the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis was based on a claimed violation of the IADA in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 instead of § 2254, "we can perceive no difference in the statutory language of the two sections that would merit different treatment of the IAD[A].” Id. at 407 n. 3.
. The Third Circuit has held that an alleged violation of the IADA is cognizable under § 2255, finding that such a violation is an exceptional circumstance warranting habeas relief. United States v. Williams, 615 F.2d 585, 590 (3rd Cir.1980). The Ninth Circuit has also ruled that a claim under the IADA is cognizable in federal habeas corpus. Cody v. Morris, 623 F.2d 101, 102-03 (9th Cir.1980).
. The Tenth Circuit has held that “[ajbsent special circumstances, violations of the IADA are not grounds for collateral attack on a federal conviction and sentence under § 2255.” Greathouse v. United States, 655 F.2d 1032, 1034 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 926, 102 S.Ct. 1289, 71 L.Ed.2d 469 (1982). See also Mars v. United States, 615 F.2d 704 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 849, 101 S.Ct. 138, 66 L.Ed.2d 60 (1980) (alleged violations of Article IV(e) trial-before-return provision and Article IV(c) 120-day time limit not cognizable under § 2255 as petitioner failed to show actual prejudice); Fasano v. Hall, 615 F.2d 555 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 867, 101 S.Ct. 201, 66 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980) (alleged violation of Article 111(a) 180-day time provision and other alleged IADA violations not cognizable under § 2254 as they did not constitute fundamental defects); Huff v. United States, 599 F.2d 860 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 952, 100 S.Ct. 428, 62 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (alleged violation of Article IV(e) trial-before return provision not cognizable under § 2255 absent a showing of prejudice); Edwards v. United States, 564 F.2d 652 (2d Cir.1977) (alleged violation of Article IV(e) trial-before-return provision not cognizable under § 2255 as there was no fundamental defect).

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.

Choices:

Answer: 2