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.

McCORD, Circuit Judge.
Edward Tademy, a resident of Mississippi, brought action for damages for libel against C. A. Scott, administrator, and others, residents of Georgia.' The two newspaper articles upon which action was predicated appeared on successive weeks in the Jackson Advocate, a paper for negroes, edited, circulated, and sold in Jackson, Mississippi, and vicinity by one Percy Green. The Jackson Advocate was listed and recognized by the Scotts as a member of their “Scott Newspaper Syndicate”, and the editions in question were printed at the Scott plant in Atlanta, Georgia.
Among other asserted defenses, the Scotts sought to have the action dismissed on the ground that notice and opportunity for retraction and apology had not been given by Tademy as required by the Georgia statute governing libel actions against newspapers. Georgia Code, Sections 105-712, 105-713. Decision on this point of law was reserved by the trial judge and the parties proceeded with the introduction of evidence. Trial was had without a jury, and at the conclusion of the trial the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered judgment for the defendants. In addition to findings on the merits, the court concluded that the failure of Tademy to give notice as required by the Georgia statute precluded recovery by him.
We shall not discuss the evidence or the findings made on the merits, for we are of opinion that the issues could not be developed until decision was made as to the applicability of the Georgia notice statute.
It is clear that the libellous articles were prepared and written by Percy Green in Jackson, Mississippi; that the matter was printed by the Scotts in Atlanta, Georgia; and that circulation and distribution of the newspapers was made in Mississippi.
Jurisdiction of the federal court sitting in Georgia was obtained because of the diversity of citizenship of the parties. Is the Georgia notice statute applicable?
In diversity of citizenship cases the conflict of law rules applied by federal courts must conform to those prevailing in the state courts. “Otherwise the accident of diversity of citizenship would constantly disturb equal administration of justice in coordinate state and federal courts sitting side by side.” Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 1021, 85 L.Ed. 1477. In actions such as this, the local policy of the state must be considered. Griffin v. McCoach, 313 U.S. 498, 61 S.Ct. 1023, 85 L.Ed. 1481, 134 A.L.R. 1462. Certainly, the statutes of Georgia reflect the public policy of the state. Lott v. Board of Education, 164 Ga. 863, 139 S.E. 722, 723.
The Georgia statute governing the bringing of newspaper libel actions provides :
“Notice to defendant specifying libelous article, etc., as condition precedent to civil action. — Before any civil action shall be brought because of any publication of a libel in any newspaper, magazine or periodical, the plaintiff shall, within the period of the statute of limitations for such actions and at least five days before instituting such action, give notice in writing to the defendant specifying the article and the statements therein which he claims to be false and defamatory and further stating in said notice what the complaining party claims to be the true state of facts.” Georgia Acts 1939, p. 343, Georgia Code, Section 105-712.
Section 105-713 of the Georgia Code provides for the effect of retraction as to damages recoverable for libel, and outlines the circumstances under which a plaintiff “shall recover only such special or actual damages as the plaintiff shows he has sustained.”
In the only cases in which the cited notice statute has been considered by the Georgia appellate courts, it was held that the statute was constitutional and that an action filed without the giving of notice was premature. Hall v. Kelly, 61 Ga.App. 694, 7 S.E. 290; Kelly v. Hall, 191 Ga. 470, 12 S.E.2d 881.
The notice statute fixes and declares the policy of the State of Georgia in actions such as this, and it is clear that had this case been brought in the state court it would have been held to be prematurely brought. Hall v. Kelly and Kelly v. Hall, supra.; Cf. Obear v. First National Bank, 97 Ga. 587, 25 S.E. 335, 33 L.R.A. 384. A federal court sitting in Georgia should likewise hold that the action was prematurely brought.
The judgment for the defendants should not have been a general judgment of non-liability on the merits. The judgment should have been one of dismissal without prejudice because of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Georgia notice statute governing newspaper libel actions.
The judgment is modified accordingly, and as modified 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: 0