opinion: Peter PERANZO, Isadore Felix, Oscar Roman, Ferdinand Fritando, Robert Lawrence, Marcella Phipps, James Boyd, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants. v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services, and Ramon Rodriguez, Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole, Gerald M. Burke, Joseph V. Salo, William J. Barnwell, Maurice Dean, Theodore Kirkland, Manuel Perron, Irving Greenberg, Maria Buchanan, Samuel D. Sherrid, Joseph Mulholland, Barbara Treen, and J. Kevin McNiff, Commissioners of New York State Board of Parole, in their Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
  No. 1269, Docket 88-2030.
  United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
  Argued June 24, 1988.
  Decided June 27, 1988.
  John A. Gresham, New York City (David C. Leven, Robert Selcov, William D. Gib-ney, Prisoners’ Legal Services of N.Y., New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.
  Maryellen Chomsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
  Before NEWMAN, KEARSE, and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM:
  This is an appeal by New York State prisoners from a judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Leonard B. Sand, Judge) granting summary judgment in favor of New York corrections officials in the prisoners’ suit challenging the reliability of urinalysis drug test results for use as evidence sufficient to warrant prison discipline. The tests are performed by State officials using the Syva Company’s EMIT-st urinalysis drug detection kits. Evidence before Judge Sand established that the testing procedure — an initial test and a subsequent confirming test — has an accuracy of at least 98%. Though the risk of false positives has not been entirely eliminated, we agree with Judge Sand that use of the test results may be relied upon as sufficient evidence to warrant prison discipline under the standards of Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-55, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). We also agree that the detention prior to the disciplinary hearings was administrative and conformed to the requirements of due process. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Bolden v. Alston, 810 F.2d 353 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 229, 98 L.Ed.2d 188 (1987).
  On the basis of Judge Sand’s well-reasoned opinion, reported at 675 F. Supp. 102, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
instruction: 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.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama