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 "natural persons". 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:
Marcus Wayne CHENAULT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy N. STYNCHCOMBE, Sheriff of Fulton County, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 77-2501.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 3, 1978.
Randy Bacote, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner-appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carter Goode, Allen Moye, Asst. Dist. Attys., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Before WISDOM, TJOFLAT and VANCE, Circuit Judges.
WISDOM, Circuit Judge:
Marcus Wayne Chenault appeals a district court order denying certain portions of his habeas corpus petition. We remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss the petition without prejudice so that Chenault may exhaust state remedies.
I.
On Sunday morning, June 30, 1974, Che-nault attended services at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta,' Georgia. During the service, Chenault shot Mrs. Martin Luther King, Sr., Deacon Edward Boykin, and Mrs. Jimmie Mitchell. Mrs. King and Mr. Boy-kin died from their wounds. On July 9, 1974, a Fulton County grand jury indicted the petitioner on two counts of murder and one count each of aggravated assault, of carrying a pistol without a license, and of carrying a concealed weapon. On September 12, 1974, a jury found the petitioner guilty of all charges. The jury imposed sentences of death on both counts of murder and a sentence of ten-years imprisonment on the aggravated assault count, which was to run consecutively with the death sentences. In addition, the trial judge imposed a one-year concurrent sentence on the count of carrying a pistol without a license and the count of carrying a concealed weapon. Chenault appealed, asserting sixteen errors. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed both his conviction and sentence. Chenault v. State, 1975, 234 Ga. 216, 215 S.E.2d 223. Chenault then instituted this federal habeas corpus proceeding, in which he presented the same errors he had asserted on his direct appeal.
The district court denied relief on fourteen alleged errors, and this Court affirmed. Chenault v. Stynchcombe, 5 Cir. 1977, 546 F.2d 1191, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 878, 98 S.Ct. 231, 54 L.Ed.2d 158. The district court stayed consideration of enumerations of error fifteen and sixteen, which attacked the constitutionality of the Georgia death penalty statute and the imposition of the death sentence, pending determination by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the death penalty. On May 26,1977, after the Supreme Court decisions in the 1976 death penalty cases, the district court denied relief on enumerations of error fifteen and sixteen.
The petitioner contends that the district court erred in denying relief on enumerations of error fifteen and sixteen. In addition, during oral argument before this Court the petitioner made two new allegations of error. These contentions will be considered in turn.
II.
The district court properly denied relief on enumerations of error fifteen and sixteen. Enumeration of error fifteen contended that the Georgia death penalty statutes violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In Gregg v. Georgia, 1976, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these Georgia statutes. Enumeration of error sixteen asserted that the petitioner’s death sentence had been imposed in violation of Ga.Code Ann. § 27-2503, because the prosecutor introduced no evidence on aggravation of punishment at the sentencing stage of the trial, choosing instead to rely only upon evidence heard on the issue of guilt. Whether this statute requires the prosecutor to present additional evidence at the sentencing stage is a question of state law, which is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding. Enumeration of error sixteen suggests no colorable federal constitutional claim.
III.
During oral argument before this Court, the petitioner asserted that the trial judge’s instructions to the jury during the sentencing stage of the trial about mitigating circumstances and the option to recommend mercy were constitutionally inadequate. The petitioner did not raise this issue in his appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia or in his habeas petition in the district court. Furthermore, he has never attempted to raise it by filing a state habeas corpus proceeding under Georgia law. If the state habeas proceeding is available to him, the petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies on this issue, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because it appears that the petitioner can avail himself of the state habeas procedure, this Court determines that the issue of the adequacy of sentencing instructions is not properly before us.
The Georgia courts appear willing to entertain habeas corpus proceedings challenging the imposition of the death penalty on federal constitutional grounds. See, e. g., Ross v. Hopper, 1977, 240 Ga. 369, 240 S.E.2d 850; Wilkes, Postconviction Habeas Corpus Relief in Georgia : A Decade After the Habeas Corpus Act, 12 Ga.L.Rev. 249, 258-59 (1978). Ga.Code Ann. § 50-127 (1977 Cum. Pocket Part) is the habeas provision applicable to persons, like the petitioner, imprisoned by virtue of a sentence imposed by a Georgia court. The statute allows the imprisoned person to assert that he has suffered a “substantial denial” of rights conferred by the United States Constitution. Ga.Code Ann. § 50-127(1). Except when the composition of a grand or traverse jury is challenged, federal constitutional rights are not deemed to have been waived unless it is shown that the habeas petitioner “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently” participated in the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege”. Id. Under this standard, it appears that the petitioner’s failure to object to the sentencing instructions at trial did not operate as a waiver. Therefore, he may pursue the state habeas remedy if his objection implicates a “substantial denial” of a federal constitutional right.
In view of the two most recent Supreme Court death penalty decisions — Lockett v. Ohio, 1978,- U.S.--, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973, and Bell v. Ohio, 1978, - U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 2977, 57 L.Ed.2d 1010 — we conclude that the petitioner’s objection does implicate a substantial denial of a federal constitutional right. In Lock-ett the plurality opinion of the Chief Justice, in which Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens joined, states that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencing judge or jury must be allowed to consider, as a mitigating factor, “any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death”. - U.S. at --, 98 S.Ct. at 2965. See Bell,-U.S. at--, 98 S.Ct. 2977 (applying Lockett). The plurality would apply this requirement in all cases except perhaps where a mandatory death sentence is needed to deter certain kinds of homicide. See Lockett, - U.S. at--& n.ll, 98 S.Ct. 2954. Justice Marshall, although still adhering to his view that capital punishment is always unconstitutional, appears to have suggested that the sentencer must be allowed to consider “the unique individuality of every criminal defendant”. Lockett, - U.S. at -, 98 S.Ct. at 2973 (Marshall, J., concurring in the judgment). Justice Brennan did not participate in either decision. He has, however, consistently maintained that the death penalty is always unconstitutional. See, e. g., Coker v. Georgia, 1977, 433 U.S. 584, 600, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (Brennan, J., concurring in the judgment).
It now seems, therefore, that a death sentence imposed by a sentencer barred from considering mitigating circumstances will be vacated by a six-member majority of the Supreme Court — the plurality in Lockett and Bell and Justices Brennan and Marshall. This constitutional requirement to allow consideration of mitigating circumstances would have no importance, of course, if the sentencing jury is unaware of what it may consider in reaching its decision. We read Lockett and Bell, then, to mandate that the judge clearly instruct the jury about mitigating circumstances and the option to recommend against ■ death. Thus, the petitioner’s contention that the sentencing instructions given by the trial judge were not adequate on this point does implicate a substantial denial of a federal constitutional right. Should he file a state habeas petition raising this contention, the state courts would be required, in light of Lockett and Bell, to determine whether the instructions given adequately comport with the United States Constitution.
IV.
Georgia law provides that, in a capital case, a prospective juror who is opposed to the imposition of the death penalty under any circumstances is automatically removed by the trial judge “for cause”. Ga.Code Ann. §§ 59-806(4), 59-807. See Eberheart v. State, 1974, 232 Ga. 247, 250-51, 206 S.E.2d 12, 15-16, vacated on other grounds, 1977, 433 U.S. 917, 97 S.Ct. 2994, 53 L.Ed.2d 1104, modified, 239 Ga. 407, 238 S.E.2d 1. During oral argument before this Court, the petitioner contended that this use of a so-called “death-qualified jury” violated the Georgia Constitution’s guarantee to a “trial by an impartial jury”. Ga.Code Ann. § 2-105 (Const.1945). That is clearly an issue of state law, which is not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.
The petitioner can obtain no relief even if his contention were recast as an argument that the death-qualified jury provision violates his right to a jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. First, this issue is not properly before this Court, because the petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies on this issue, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He did not present the issue on his appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, and he has not raised it by filing a state habeas proceeding under Ga.Code Ann. § 50-127. Second, in the recent case of Spinkellink v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1978, 578 F.2d 582, a panel of this Court held that a death-qualified jury procedure does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial. Thus, this Court would be required to reject the petitioner’s argument if we had jurisdiction over this issue.
V.
In summary, we affirm the decision of the district court that the petitioner’s enumerations of error fifteen and sixteen are without merit. We find that his challenges to the sentencing instructions and to the death-qualified jury are not properly before this Court because he has failed to exhaust state remedies. We remand the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the petition without prejudice so that the petitioner may pursue state remedies for these contentions.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
. Georgia allows a person incarcerated under a sentence imposed by a State court to institute a habeas corpus proceeding. See Ga.Code Ann. § 50-127 (1977 Cum. Pocket Part). The petitioner has never attempted to obtain the writ of habeas corpus for the Georgia courts. In the district court, the respondent argued that the federal habeas corpus petition must be dismissed because the petitioner had failed to exhaust state remedies, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court determined that the petitioner had met the exhaustion requirement because on appeal the Supreme Court of Georgia had ruled upon every enumeration of error contained in the federal petition. The respondent has not renewed this exhaustion argument in this Court.
. Gregg v. Georgia, 1976, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859; Proffitt v. Florida, 1976, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913; Jurek v. Texas, 1976, 428 U.S. 262, 96 S.Ct.. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929; Woodson v. North Carolina, 1976, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944; Roberts v. Louisiana, 1976, 428 U.S. 325, 96 S.Ct. 3001, 49 L.Ed.2d 974.
. In the petitioner’s direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the prosecutor was not required to present additional evidence at the sentencing stage of the trial. Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. at 224-25, 215 S.E.2d at 229.
. There are many cases that state that a state prisoner may not pursue federal habeas corpus unless he has raised his issues in a state habeas proceeding. Recent Fifth Circuit cases to this effect are: Mosley v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1973, 470 F.2d 1320, cert. denied, 1973, 412 U.S. 932, 93 S.Ct. 2757, 37 L.Ed.2d 160; Brookins v. Florida, 5 Cir. 1972, 461 F.2d 663; Pebworth v. Henderson, 5 Cir. 1970, 428 F.2d 789; Wheeler v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1969, 407 F.2d 816.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1