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.

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
Henry Grady Young, Jr., appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 659 (1970) for knowing possession of property stolen from an interstate shipment. He argues that the district court erred in overruling his motion for acquittal at the close of the Government’s case. We affirm.
At approximately 9:30 p. m. on February 2, 1977, police officer Arthur Williams was investigating a tractor-trailer unit suspiciously parked on a St. Louis street. As he approached the scene in his unmarked police car, he observed appellant Young standing on a nearby corner. Young, upon seeing the car approaching, immediately ran down the sidewalk past a Chevrolet automobile parked approximately thirty feet away from the trailer, slamming the trunk shut as he ran by. Before the trunk was closed, Williams observed two large cardboard boxes inside. Williams apprehended both Young and Nathaniel Franklin, who was standing in the rear of the trailer. A search of the Chevrolet trunk revealed two cartons, each containing four Panasonic Citizens Band AM/FM radios. Further investigation disclosed that the radios had been removed from the tractor-trailer, that Franklin owned the Chevrolet, and that Franklin and Young had spent the evening together. Young and Franklin were tried together and convicted by a jury.
On appeal, Young argues that the Government’s evidence was insufficient to sustain the “possession” element of the charge against him. He further argues that for purposes of this appeal we should consider only the evidence presented by the Government in its case in chief.
The law is to the contrary. In deciding whether the Government’s evidence is sufficient to withstand a motion for acquittal, this court may examine the record as a whole, including evidence put on by the defendant. United States v. Davis, 542 F.2d 743, 746 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1004, 97 S.Ct. 537, 50 L.Ed.2d 616 (1976); United States v. Geelan, 509 F.2d 737, 742 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 999, 95 S.Ct. 2395, 44 L.Ed.2d 666 (1975). A conviction can rest solely on circumstantial evidence, which is intrinsically as probative as direct evidence. United States v. Lambros, 564 F.2d 26 (8th Cir. 1977); United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346, 1360 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2174, 53 L.Ed.2d 224 (1977).
The evidence, viewed as a whole, was sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty. The jury could reasonably infer from Young’s running to the vehicle and closing the lid that he exercised joint possession of the car and the stolen merchandise. Young’s testimony at trial that he had spent the evening with Franklin was inconsistent with his earlier statements to F.B.I. agents, a fact the jury could have considered in judging Young’s credibility.
We affirm the conviction.

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