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.

HAYS, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Boria was convicted after a jury trial of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), and 841(b) (1) (A), and conspiracy to commit these acts in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He appeals on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to convict. Specifically, he contends that the government’s main witness against him testified that the criminal acts of which Boria was accused took place in October or November of 1971, a period during which Boria was concededly in jail. After the jury verdict of guilty appellant made a motion in the district court pursuant to F.R.Crim.P. Rule 29(c) for a judgment of acquittal on this ground. The district court denied the motion. We affirm.
The main witness against Boria was Dolores Martinez. She testified that beginning in October 1971 she regularly met with John Campopiano in a tavern in the Bronx and in other places and purchased cocaine from him. In January or February of 1972 Campopiano first told her that he also had heroin for sale but that she would have to have “front money”- — that is, that she would have to pay for the heroin before receiving it. When she asked if she might take the heroin on consignment he went to the back of the tavern and consulted Gennaro Zanfardino and returned to tell her she could not.
She further testified that within a few days thereafter she twice arranged for appellant to purchase heroin from Campopiano.
The day after giving this testimony Martinez took the stand and amended her prior testimony by stating that the meeting at which Campopiano had consulted Zanfardino had occurred not in January or February 1972 but in November 1971.
This testimony did not require the jury to find that, since Boria was in jail in November 1971, no sale to him had taken place. Martinez’ changed testimony related only by implication to the sales to Boria. At no time did she explicitly direct her attention to the sales to Boria, which involved large quantities of heroin and the exchange of considerable sums of money, on one occasion $25,000, or state that they had occurred in November 1971. It is not surprising that her testimony as to dates of meetings with Campopiano should be somewhat confusing. She testified to at least fifty drug sales and to numerous meetings with Campopiano. When asked how many times she had had meetings with Campopiano during which Campopiano left her to ask questions of Zanfardino and then returned with an answer, she replied, “Several times.” The jury could and apparently did find either that Martinez was mistaken about the date of the meeting which preceded the sales to Boria or that she had confused that meeting with a similar meeting in November.
There was other testimony which supports this interpretation. On cross-examination Martinez emphasized that her original purchases had been exclusively of cocaine and that she had not received heroin from Campopiano until February of 1972. There was also testimony by an Assistant United States Attorney that in an interview before trial Boria admitted that he had lived in the apartment described by Martinez as the place where the sales to Boria occurred.
It is the province of the jury to “weigh the evidence and draw justifiable inferences of fact.” United States v. Taylor, 464 F.2d 240, 243 (2d Cir. 1972). Applying this standard, we find that there was sufficient evidence that the sales to Boria took place in February 1972.
We have considered appellant’s other claims and find them to be without merit.
Affirmed.
. The district court’s charge to the jury was probably more favorable than appellant deserved. The court charged the jury:
“If you find that Dolores Martinez’ testimony concerning the defendant Arcadio Boria places the time of their dealings in November, 1971, then I charge you you must acquit Boria because he was not in New York City until after December 23, 1971 and that fact is not in dispute.”

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