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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gary Carwell CROUCH, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Mary CROUCH, Appellant.
Nos. 79-5080, 79-5096.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 2, 1981.
Decided May 4, 1981.
John R. Lester, Columbia, S. C., for appellant in No. 79-5080.
Stanford E. Lacy, Columbia, S. C., on brief, for appellant in No. 79-5096.
Eric Wm. Ruschky, Asst. U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C. (Thomas E. Lydon, Jr., U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WIDENER, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Mary Crouch and her son, Gary Carwell Crouch, were convicted in the United States District Court of South Carolina of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and the attempted manufacture of the same substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. They seek relief from these convictions on the ground that certain evidence introduced by the government at trial was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We hold that the seizure was not invalid and affirm the judgment of the district court.
On July 6, 1978, agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration executed a federal search warrant at 2207 Lincoln Street in Columbia, South Carolina, the home of Mary Crouch. The warrant directed the seizure of “... chemicals, laboratory equipment, and other paraphernalia, which are used in the illegal manufacture of methamphetamines in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).”
During the course of the search, agents discovered a number of letters written by each of the appellants to the other. Letters received by Gary Crouch were located in a desk drawer, and those received by Mary Crouch were found in her purse. In both cases, the letters were within the premises subject to search under the warrant and were in envelopes which had already been opened. The agents examined the contents of these letters and found that they contained information concerning the manufacture of methamphetamine, including a partial formula for that substance. Such information was relevant to the charge that appellants were manufacturing methamphetamines, and the letters were seized as evidence.
Defendants unsuccessfully moved to suppress these letters at trial. They take the position that Marrón v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927), forbade the seizure of paper writings under a search warrant for paraphernalia as being beyond the description of the warrant, and that the seizure was not justified under the plain view doctrine. Because we find the seizure of the letters to have been proper under the plain view doctrine, we need not determine whether they come under the rule in Marrón.
The application of the plain view doctrine to the facts of this case is clear. The agents were legally on the premises pursuant to a search warrant, the validity of which is not contested. That the letters were discovered inadvertently is adequately demonstrated by the absence of any reference to them in the affidavit for the search warrant, and by Agent Shumard’s testimony that the officers did not enter upon the search with the expectation of finding such letters. Furthermore, the incriminating nature of the letters was immediately apparent to the agents. While there was nothing incriminating about the envelopes in which the letters were originally discovered, the agents acted within the scope of the search warrant in removing the letters from those envelopes to search for the chemicals and paraphernalia named in the warrant. The writings thus exposed to their view were clearly and immediately incriminating.
We attach no significance to the fact that some cursory reading of the letters was necessary in order to establish their nature. In United States v. Ochs, 595 F.2d 1247 (2d Cir. 1979), Judge Friendly noted that “[a] number of courts, including this one, have upheld without much discussion the seizure of documents during an otherwise valid search as in ‘plain view’ notwithstanding the fact that some perusal, generally fairly brief, of the documents was clearly necessary in order for the police to perceive the relevance of the document to crime.” 595 F.2d at 1257, note 8. In that case, the Second Circuit upheld the plain view seizure of certain index cards which in fact were loansharking records, regardless of the fact that police were obliged to take note of their contents before their incriminating nature became apparent. Similarly, in Mapp v. Warden, 531 F.2d 1167 (2d Cir. 1976), on facts nearly indistinguishable from those here, the same circuit held that certain rent receipts were properly seized as in plain view even though their incriminating nature was only apparent after police noticed a suspicious name on them. The court stated that “... it would be somewhat absurd to require an investigator to be oblivious to that which would be apparent to anyone else with normal powers of observation.” 531 F.2d at 1172.
We have noted with approval the rule in Ochs and Mapp, supra, that the brief perusal of an item does not render its incriminating nature any the less immediately apparent. In United States v. Phillips, 593 F.2d 553 (4th Cir. 1978), we held that police engaged in the execution of certain arrest warrants acted properly in seizing three address books. In two such incidents, officers came upon closed books and, upon opening them and discovering lists of names and addresses, seized them as evidence of a drug conspiracy. While the nature of the books’ contents was unknown to the officers before such perusal, we held that the items were properly seized as in plain view.
In this case, the agents read a number of letters revealed to them in the course of their search. While such perusal was necessary to determine the letters’ incriminating nature, it revealed no more than would have been evident “to anyone else with normal powers of observation.” Thus, we find the letters to have been immediately incriminating and properly subject to seizure.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED
. Gary Crouch was convicted by a jury. Mary Crouch waived a jury trial and was found guilty by the court on the same stipulated record.
. United States v. Presler, 610 F.2d 1206, 1211 (4th Cir. 1978). In Presler we did not agree with the rationale upon which the Ochs court justified the initial intrusion into a briefcase in which the index cards were found. This criticism, however, was limited in scope and did not extend to the latter case’s analysis of an officer’s right to read documents in order to determine their nature.
. See also United States v. Haynie, et al., 637 F.2d 227 (4th Cir. 1980) (notebooks discovered following hot pursuit entry).
. On facts similar to those before us, we held in United States v. Avery, 447 F.2d 978 (4th Cir. 1971), that the plain view doctrine applied to a map of a bank, which apparently required explanation to identify it as the robbed premises, seized in execution of a search warrant apparently issued in aid of a charge of bank robbery which described the article searched for as money.

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: 0