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.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
This appeal is from an order of the United States Board of Tax Appeals dismissing appellant’s petition asking a redetermination of deficiencies in taxes for the years 1922, 1923, and 1924.
It appears that on November 10, 1927, the Commissioner mailed appellant the statutory notice of his determination of deficiencies; and on January 10; 1928, appellant filed Ms petition with the Board asking for a redetermination of the deficiencies. The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that the petition was not filed with the Board until the 61st day after the mailing of the deficiency notice, the 60th day not being Sunday.
Section 274(a) of the Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 55 (26 USCA § 1048), provides as follows: “If in the ease of any taxpayer, the commissioner determines that there is a deficiency in respect of the tax imposed by this chapter, the commissioner is authorized to send notice of such deficiency to the taxpayer by registered mail. Within 60 days after such notice is mailed (not counting Sunday as tho sixtieth day), the taxpayer may file a petition with the Board of Tax Appeals for a redetermination of tho deficiency.”
Rule 61 of the Rules of Practice before the Board of Tax Appeals provides: “When the time prescribed by these rules for doing any act expires on a Sunday or a legal holiday in tho District of Columbia, such time shall extend to and include the next succeeding day that is not a Sunday or such a legal holiday; Provided, That when the time for performing any act is prescribed by statute nothing in these rules shall be deemed to be a limitation or extension of the statutory time fixed.” Under Rule 1 of the Rules of Practice of the Board of Tax Appeals, it is provided that “the office of the Board at Washington, D. C. will be open each business day from 9:00 o’clock a. m. to 4:30 o’clock p. m.”
It is contended that, inasmuch as the notice of November 10,1927, was not filed until 4:45 o’clock p. m., it should not be counted as having been mailed until November the 11th; and that, inasmuch as it could not be mailed on the 11th until after the opening of the business day, 9 :00 o’clock a. m., that day should not be counted, and since appellant’s petition was filed during the business day of Tuesday, January 10, 1928, the fraction remaining of that day should not be counted as a day. Therefore, by excluding November 10 and 11, 1927, and Tuesday, January 101, 1928, the petition was filed within 60' days. .
In support of this method of computation defendant relies upon the case of Lewis-Hall Iron Works v. Blair, 57 App. D. C. 364, 23 F.(2d) 972, but this case is not in point. The court was there called upon to define the meaning of the word “file,” and decided that a petition deposited with the Board at 7:10 o’clock of the 60th day was'not, in view of Rule 1, filed within the time limit fixed by statute. The only question there considered was the effect of filing a petition outside of the business hours of the. board. The court upheld the Board’s ruling; and the question of the exclusion from the computation of the 60th day, had the petition been filed in business hours, was not considered. The decision cannot, therefore, be cited as authority for considering November 10th .as the mailing day. But even if appellant’s contention as to the failure to mail the notice within business hours on November 10th were sustained, then the period would run from the begining of November 11th, and 60 days from that date would expire on Monday, January 9, 1928, while appellant’s petition was not filed until January 10th.
In the present case the sixtieth day did not fall on a Sunday or a holiday, hence the case comes .clearly within the limitations both of the statute and the rule. The rule as to computing time in cases of this sort was early announced by the Supreme Court in Sheets v. Selden’s Lessee, 2 Wall. 177, 190, 17 L. Ed. 822, as follows: “The general current of the modem authorities on the interpretation of contracts, and also of statutes, where time is to be computed! from a particular day or a particular event, as when an act is to be performed within a specified period from or after a day named, is to exclude the day thus designated, and to include the last day of the specified period.” In the present case, excluding the notice day, November 10, 1927, and including the day the petition was filed, January 10, 1928, appellant failed to meet the requirements of the statute and the rule.
The proceedings for review of the Commissioner’s determination by the Board are purely statutory, and must be observed to the letter. The court or the Board is not permitted to modify the statute or rule even for equitable reasons. The provision of the statute here under consideration is in the nature of a limitation upon the right of the taxpayer to avail himself of the right of appeal, and there must be a strict compliance with its provisions, if the taxpayer desires to take advantage of the rights conferred. Florsheim Brothers Dry Goods Co. v. United States, 280 U. S. 453, 50 S. Ct. 215, 74 L. Ed. 542; Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber Co. (April 14, 1930) 50 S. Ct. 297, 74 L. Ed. 829.
The action of the Board in ordering a dismissal 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