Task: songer_r_fed

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 "the federal government, its 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.

BARNES, Circuit Judge.
Bruce Arnold Haserot (appellant) having waived jury trial, was tried and convicted by the district court under an indictment charging him, on or about May 14, 1962, with returning to and entering the United States without registering with a Customs official, agent or employee at his point of entry as required by law, and without surrendering the certificate (which the law required him to obtain before leaving the United States) to said Customs official, agent or employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1407. Appellant was sentenced to two years imprisonment, subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a) (2).
The jurisdiction of the district court was based on 18 U.S.C. § 3231; this court has jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1294 d).
There is no factual dispute in this case. Title 18 United States Code § 1407 (a) provides, in part:
“[I]n order to facilitate more effective control of the international traffic in narcotic drugs, and to prevent the spread of drug addiction, no citizen of the United States who is addicted to or uses narcotic drugs * * or who has been convicted of a violation of any of the narcotic or marihuana laws of the United States, or of any State thereof, the penalty for which is imprisonment for more than one year, shall depart from or enter into or attempt to depart from or enter into the United States, unless such person registers, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury with a customs official, agent, or employee at a point of entry or a border customs station. Unless otherwise prohibited by law or Federal regulation such customs official, agent, or employee shall issue a certificate to any such person departing from the United States; and such person shall, upon returning to the United States, surrender such certificate to the customs official, agent, or employee present at the port of entry or border customs station.”
On October 19, 1959, in the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, State of California, appellant had been convicted of a violation of Section 11502 (now Section 11503) of the California Health and Safety Code. This section states:
“Every person who agrees, consents, or in any manner offers to unlawfully sell, furnish, transport, administer, or give any narcotic to any person, or offers, arranges, or negotiates to have any narcotic unlawfully sold, delivered, transported, furnished, administered, or given to any person and then sells, delivers, furnishes, transports, administers, or gives, or offers, arranges, or negotiates to have sold, delivered, transported, furnished, administered, or given to any person any other liquid, substance, or material in lieu of any narcotic shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or in the state prison for not more than 10 years.”
On May 14, 1962, appellant, a citizen of the United States, did return and enter the United States at the Port of San Diego (San Ysidro), California, without registering with a Customs official, agent or employee at this point of entry, and without surrendering a certificate, showing that he had registered, to the Customs official, agent or employee.
The sole question on appeal is whether Section 11503 is a “narcotic or marihuana” law of the State of California within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1407 (a).
Appellant contends that Section 11503 is “merely a legislative enlargement of the California ‘bunco’ law,” and not a narcotic law. (Appellant’s Brief, p. 7).
It seems clear to us that Section 11503 is a “narcotic or marihuana” law of the State of California. It is found in the California Health and Safety Code under Division X, entitled “Narcotics,” and under Chapter 5, entitled “Illegal Narcotics.” This section is listed among the prior narcotics offenses precluding probation in the event of a subsequent conviction. (Cal. H. & S. Code, § 11715.-6.) It is one of those narcotic offenses involving increased potential punishment limits in the event of a subsequent conviction. (Cf. Cal. H. & S. Code §§ 11500, 11500.5, 11501, 11502 and 11502.-1.) Persons convicted of violating Section 11503 are required to register under Article 6 of the California Health and Safety Code, entitled “Registration of Narcotic Offenders” (Cal. H. & S. Code §§ 11850.)
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officialss"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1