Task: songer_r_subst

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 "sub-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:
Guy N. Haynes appeals from an order denying his claim for relief under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. § 901, et seq. Because Haynes did not receive the presumption of 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(a)(1) to which he is entitled under Stapleton v. Westmoreland Coal Company, 785 F.2d 424 (4th Cir.1986) (en banc), we remand the case to the Secretary for reconsideration.
Haynes worked in the coal mining industry from April 1935 until his retirement at age 65 in August 1978. In a hearing in December 1981 before an Administrative Law Judge, Haynes testified that he had believed that continued work would injure his health and that he could no longer give his employer a satisfactory performance. Specifically, he reported a shortness of breath, a tightness in his chest, and an inability to climb stairs.
In a decision and order issued in January 1983, the AU considered Haynes’ account together with the results of three pulmonary function studies and three blood gas studies, the opinions of three physicians, and the interpretations advanced in eleven analyses of three conformed X-ray films. The AU first found, correctly, that the pulmonary function studies and the blood gas studies did not justify invocation of the presumptions described at § 727.203(a)(2) or § 727.203(a)(3). Turning to the X-ray evidence, the AU weighed the two positive readings of one film against the six negative readings of the same film and the unanimously negative readings of an earlier film and a later film. On the basis of that comparison, the AU concluded that Haynes was also not entitled to the presumption described at § 727.203(a)(1). On the final preliminary issue, however, the AU reasoned that one of the physician’s reports did satisfy the requirement for the presumption set forth at § 727.203(a)(4). Evaluating all of the evidence presented by the parties, the AU determined that the employer had failed to refute the presumption and accordingly ordered the award of benefits to Haynes.
The Benefits Review Board reversed this judgment in a decision and order issued in September 1985. The Board could not find substantial evidence to support the AU’s reading of the physician’s opinion and the resulting invocation of the presumption under § 727.203(a)(4), but the Board did not examine the AU’s analysis of the X-ray readings and decision not to invoke the presumption under § 727.203(a)(1). This court has recently established in Stapleton v. Westmoreland Coal Company that that analysis and that conclusion were incorrect. If a single reading of a qualifying X-ray indicates the presence of pneumoconiosis, the (a)(1) presumption is triggered. Conflicting interpretations of the same or different X-rays and distinctions among “A” and “B” readers do not enter into this stage of the proceedings, although those factors — like all relevant evidence — may play a part in determining whether the interim presumption has been rebutted.
Here the Secretary has not yet reviewed the attempted rebuttal. We therefore remand the case for further consideration, in which Haynes will receive the benefit of the presumption at § 727.203(a)(1) and the Secretary will decide whether the presumption has been rebutted by other evidence in the record. Cf. Lagamba v. Consolidation Coal Co., 787 F.2d 172 (4th Cir.1986).
REMANDED.

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

Answer: 0