Task: songer_r_state

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 "state governments, their 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.
The petitioner was tried, convicted, and sentenced in the court of common pleas of Richland County, Ohio, on the 10th day of June, 1948. After the filing of many petitions in the district court of the United States for the southern district of Ohio for writs of habeas corpus, which were denied, and for leave to appeal in this court, which was also denied on the ground that he had not exhausted his State remedies, he has now as of December 16, 1954, filed a petition to appeal from an order of the Honorable Lester L. Cecil, United States District Judge for the said district, which was returned to him by an order of the court because it failed to show that the petitioner had exhausted his State remedies and because no certificate of probable cause had been issued by the said District Judge.
The petitioner now, by supplemental petition, urges that he was unable to pursue his remedies in the State court because as a pauper he was unable to prepay the costs required by the Rules of Practice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Nos. VII and XVII appearing in 157 Ohio State. His supplemental petition, therefore, presents a question as to whether Ohio provides an effective remedy for the review of State judgments in circumstances here presented.
In our order of December 16, 1954 we directed that the several petitions now lodged with the court may be filed, that the petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis, and that the clerk be directed to secure counsel for said petitioner, who may intelligently present his grievances to this court, directed to the question whether the state of Ohio makes available adequate remedies for the review of judgment, and whether there is adequate ground for the issue by this court of a certificate of probable cause to appeal.
Such counsel was appointed and has now presented a Memorandum which fairly indicates that there is no provision in the Rules of Practice of the Ohio Supreme Court for an indigent prisoner to file an appeal to such court without paying the docket fee and the costs of the action, and that a pauper’s affidavit addressed to that court is not acceptable. It is, therefore, the view of this court that the Ohio Supreme Court does not provide an adequate remedy for the prosecution of an appeal from the State courts of Ohio and its failure so to provide gives the District Court of the United States jurisdiction to entertain a writ for habeas corpus and that upon its denial there is sufficient probable cause for an appeal therefrom. Therefore, we hereby grant to the petitioner a certificate of probable cause to appeal and the clerk of this court is directed to obtain counsel for the petitioner to prosecute such appeal and, when perfected, such appeal will be placed upon the hearing docket of this court at a convenient date.
It is so ordered.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1