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 appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
Frank COUSART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward R. HAMMOCK, Chairman, New York State Board of Parole, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 1477, Docket 84-2079.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Aug. 8, 1984.
Decided Sept. 28, 1984.
Abraham Werfel, Jamaica, N.Y., for petitioner-appellant.
Jo Ann Becker, New York City (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, Judith T. Kramer, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, of counsel), for respondent-appellee.
Before Van GRAAFEILAND and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and COFFRIN, District Judge.
The Honorable Albert W. Coffrin, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
WINTER, Circuit Judge:
Since Judge Wexler’s opinion, 580 F.Supp. 259 (E.D.N.Y.1984), familiarity with which is assumed, sets out the facts in detail, we need only summarize them briefly. Petitioner Cousart was convicted in June, 1975, in a New York state court of possessing and selling a controlled substance. A timely notice of appeal was filed but Cousart was incarcerated pending that appeal. The New York Appellate Division appointed a succession of attorneys to represent Cousart, some of whom later discovered conflicts of interest and one of whom was replaced on Cousart’s pro se motion to expedite the appeal. His present counsel was appointed in December, 1978, and perfected the appeal in November, 1979. The over four year delay between the notice of appeal and its perfection and disposition is the basis for Cousart’s present claims.
After hearing the appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Cousart’s conviction and remanded for a retrial. He thereupon moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that he had been denied a speedy trial and that “the interests of justice” required dismissal. The motion was denied and Cousart pleaded guilty, reserving his right to appeal the stated issues. Both the Appellate Division, 85 A.D.2d 932, 447 N.Y. S.2d 84 (2d Dep’t 1982), and the New York Court of Appeals, 58 N.Y.2d 62, 444 N.E.2d 971, 458 N.Y.S.2d 507 (1982), affirmed the conviction. Petitioner then filed a petition for habeas corpus, which Judge Wexler denied. This appeal followed. We affirm.
The petition raises four legal claims arising out of the delay in Cousart’s appeal from his original conviction in the New York courts. He asserts a deprivation of his rights to: (i) effective assistance of counsel, (ii) a speedy trial, (iii) due process, and (iv) equal protection of the laws. Since the effective assistance claim requires a showing of actual prejudice, Strickland v. Washington, — U.S.—, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2067 (1984), and the speedy trial claim requires a balancing of pertinent factors, including prejudice, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-33, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), they differ from Cousart’s formulation of his due process and equal protection claims, which, he argues, impose a per se rule requiring a dismissal of the indictment in circumstances such as the instant case. Judge Wexler held that all four claims had been raised in the state courts and were thus exhausted. Reaching the merits, he held against Cousart. We affirm on the grounds that the first two claims were preserved in the state courts but are meritless, and that the latter two were waived.
In Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 194 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 723, 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984), we held that a petitioner will be found to have exhausted state remedies on a claim if there has been:
“(a) reliance on pertinent federal cases employing constitutional analysis,
(b) reliance on state cases employing constitutional analysis in like fact situations,
(c) assertion of the claims in terms so particular as to call to mind a specific right protected by the Constitution, [or]
(d) allegation of a pattern of facts that is well within the mainstream of constitutional litigation.”
Since the speedy trial claim was raised in haec verba and the pattern of facts alleged in support raised questions about the adequacy of the assistance of counsel, both claims were presented to the New York state courts under the rule in Daye. However, the due process and equal protection claims, as formulated, differ in material respects from the speedy trial, ineffective assistance claims. Nevertheless, the record indicates that only the words “speedy trial” and “in the interests of justice” were used in the New York trial court, and we believe a court confronted with only those words would not be alerted to a novel claim asserting a per se rule.
Had matters been left in this posture, we would have to conclude that the petition raised both exhausted and unexhausted claims and should be dismissed under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). However, in a footnote in his brief before the New York Court of Appeals, Cousart’s counsel suggested that he had explicitly raised the due process, equal protection claims in an off-the-record colloquy before the trial judge and offered to supply his version of that colloquy at oral argument if so requested by the court. The Court of Appeals ignored this attempt to raise matters dehors the record, as appellant’s counsel had good reason to anticipate from pri- or experience, see People v. Ethrindge, 36 A.D.2d 80, 319 N.Y.S.2d 761 (2d Dep’t 1971), affd without opinion, 29 N.Y.2d 766, 276 N.E.2d 625, 326 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1971), particularly in the absence of any attempt to use formal procedures available to correct or amplify the record. See, e.g. N.Y.Civ.Prac.R. 5525 (McKinney 1978); N.Y.C.R.R. tit. 22, § 670.8 (1984) (both provisions applied to criminal appeals in Second Department by id. § 670.16). The Court of Appeals also concluded that, in light of the arguments before it, the due process, equal protection claims had been waived. We are thus confronted not with a failure to exhaust these claims but with a procedural default under New York law which bars our consideration of them absent a showing of cause and prejudice. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). No such showing has been made. We need not, therefore, reach the merits with regard to those claims.
Having concluded that the due process, equal protection claims had been raised in the state courts, Judge Wexler reached the merits of those claims and denied them. He apparently believed that the denial of those claims also disposed of the effective assistance, speedy trial claims and thus declined to discuss them in his opinion. 580 F.Supp. at 268. Because we do not reach the merits of the due process, equal protection claims, we must address those issues not discussed by Judge Wexler. With regard to the effective assistance claim, his finding of lack of actual prejudice is, of course, sufficient to deny it under Strickland v. Washington. We also conclude that Cousart has failed to satisfy the balancing test of Barker v. Wingo with regard to his speedy trial claim. While the delay in hearing the appeal was lengthy, there is no showing of bad faith or improper motive in the appointment of counsel or in their delayed discovery of disqualifying factors. Moreover, Cousart was not prejudiced by the delay in securing a retrial since the transcript of previous testimony by any missing witnesses was available, and we have not been alerted to any prejudice resulting from the use of transcript rather than live testimony.
We therefore affirm.
. We assume, but do not decide, that court appointment of counsel is sufficient state involvement to be the basis for the speedy trial, due process and equal protection claims. We also assume without deciding that Cousart had a continuing Sixth Amendment speedy trial interest following his conviction.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0