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:
Buster O’NEAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S. Lamont SMITH, Warden, Georgia State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 29398
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 10, 1970.
Joseph W. Popper, Jr., Macon, Ga., for appellant; Buster O’Neal, pro se.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, William R. Childers, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5th Cir., See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
O’Neal appeals from the District Court’s denial of habeas corpus relief after an evidentiary hearing. He asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in state proceedings and that he did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty to a charge of automobile larceny. We affirm.
During the District Court’s eviden-tiary hearing, O’Neal testified that he spoke with counsel for no more than five minutes before the guilty pleas were entered. He further alleged that although he pled guilty to the charge of escape, he did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty to the charge of auto larceny. The District Court, however, found that O’Neal pled guilty to both escape and auto larceny “knowingly, voluntarily, and understandingly and that he was afforded and enjoyed the benefits of the effective assistance of counsel.” The court also found O’Neal’s uncorroborated testimony regarding his innocence unworthy of belief and concluded: “The procedures employed by petitioner’s court-appointed counsel in no way deprived petitioner of the effective assistance of counsel. * * * [The attorney] acted in a competent and professional manner.”
This Court will not distrub the District Court’s findings of fact on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a); accord, Washington v. Smith, 5 Cir.1969, 417 F.2d 301, 302; Foster v. Beto, 5 Cir.1969, 412 F.2d 892, 893; Doughty v. Beto, 5 Cir.1968, 396 F.2d 128, 130. Certainly the trial court is in a better position than we to determine such a factual matter as the credibility of a witness’s testimony or the efficacy of counsel’s assistance. See, e.g., Gibson v. Wainwright, 5 Cir.1970, 423 F.2d 1110, 1111. Thus we cannot fault the District Court’s refusal to believe O’Neal’s uncorroborated testimony. Nor can we question its evaluation of his counsel under the circumstances presented here.
A charge of ineffective assistance by counsel may not be sustained unless it clearly appears well grounded. In cases where the accused pleads guilty, appointed counsel, to effectively represent his client, must ascertain only that the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. Lamb v. Beto, 5 Cir.1970, 423 F.2d 85, 87; see Edwards v. United States, 1958, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 256 F.2d 707, 709, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 847, 79 S.Ct. 74, 3 L.Ed.2d 82. In this regard, the time which counsel spends with an accused is merely one factor to be weighed in evaluating the effectiveness of representation. Doughty v. Beto, supra, 396 F.2d at 130; accord, Evans v. Beto, 5 Cir.1969, 415 F.2d 1129, 1130; Foster v. Beto, supra, 412 F.2d at 893.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the District Court that O’Neal has manifested no denial of his constitutional rights which could give rise to habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(c) (3).
Affirmed.
. On the first appeal of this case, we remanded for an evidentiary hearing. O’Neal v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1969, 413 F.2d 269.

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: 1