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.

PER CURIAM.
This private, treble-damage, antitrust suit instituted May 24, 1961 involves the business of distributing to motion picture theatres advertising posters and still photographs for display in theatre lobbies and on billboards.
On June 16, 1961, the district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant “from directly or indirectly refusing to deal with the plaintiff, Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc., upon the same terms and conditions which prevailed prior to February 15, 1961.”
Some two years later, on June 25, 1963, the defendant moved for a temporary injunction against the plaintiff to restrain the plaintiff from failing to comply with the limitation of the injunction against the defendant, namely: “upon the same terms and conditions which prevailed prior to February 15, 1961.” After a full hearing, the court on September 14, 1963, denied the motion of the defendant for a temporary injunction. The present appeal is prosecuted from that judgment.
The narrow issue presented to the district court was whether the plaintiff had abused the rights it enjoyed under the preliminary injunction issued in its favor against the defendant. By subsequent affidavits filed in this Court, the defendant appellant has brought forward the dollar amounts of the plaintiff’s orders from the defendant through September 1964.
After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of the defendant for a temporary injunction. This holding, however, is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to move either for a prompt final hearing or for such interlocutory relief as may presently appear appropriate. The preliminary injunction against the defendant having now been in effect for four years, the case should be finally disposed of. It is no fault of the district court that that has not been done earlier, for that court faces a case load which would tax the capacity of twice the number of judges presently provided. If the case cannot now proceed to final decree, then the enforcement of the preliminary injunction against the defendant should be strictly limited to its precise scope, that is, to the terms and conditions which prevailed prior to February 15, 1961. With this limitation or caveat, the judgment is
Affirmed.
. The defendant, appellant had consented to a decree entered on March 29, 1957, in a Government antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, United States v. National Screen Service Corporation, et al., 20 F.R.D. 226. Since the institution of the present suit, a companion private antitrust action has been the subject of several opinions in this Circuit — Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Service Corporation, N.D. Ga.1961, 198 F.Supp. 557, aff’d, 5 Cir. 1962, 305 F.2d 647, subsequent judgment affirmed Jan. 22, 1965. The Poster Exchange, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corporation, et al., 5 Cir., 340 F.2d 320. There has also been extensive private antitrust litigation in other circuits. Bob Smith d/b/a Theatre Poster Service v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., National Screen Service Corp., et al., U.S.Dist.Ct., W.D.Okl., Rizley, J., temporary injunction denied May 22, 1961; Lawlor v. National Screen et al., 3 Cir., 270 F.2d 146, cert. den. 362 U.S. 922, 80 S.Ct. 676, 4 L.Ed.2d 742; Lipp v. National Screen, et al., E.D.Pa., 188 F.Supp. 245, aff’d (3 Cir.) 290 F.2d 321, cert. den. 368 U.S. 835, 82 S.Ct. 61, 7 L.Ed.2d 36; Vogelstein v. National Screen, et al., E.D.Pa., 204 F.Supp. 591, aff’d (3 Cir.) 310 F.2d 738, cert. den. 374 U.S. 840, 83 S.Ct. 1894, 10 L.Ed.2d 1061.

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: 0