Task: songer_appstate

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 appellants 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 appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, Mrs. Mabel P. Egan, as committee of her husband, John G. Egan, brought this suit on January 20, 1932, to recover five annual disability payments of $1,000 each with interest, penalties, and attorney’s fees under a policy of life insurance issued to him on September 22,1913, in the amount of $10,-000 by appellee, the New York Life Insurance Company. The suit was dismissed on demurrer. This appeal followed.
The material facts disclosed by the petition and policy annexed are these. The policy contained the following provisions:
“Waiver of Premiums. If, after this policy shall have been in force one full year and before default in the payment of any premium, the company receives due proof that the Insured before attaining the age of sixty years has become wholly disabled by bodily injury or disease. so that he is and will be presumably thereby permanently and continuously prevented from engaging in any occupation whatsoever for remuneration or profit, the company shall waive payment of such premium as it thereafter becomes due during the Insured’s said disability.
“Installment Payments. In addition to waiving payment of premiums as aforesaid, if such disability shall have occurred before the insured attained the age of sixty years, the company, one year after said proof of such disability, shall pay to the insured one-tenth of the face amount of the policy and a like amount in each insurance year thereafter during the continuance of such disability prior to the maturity of the policy. * * * ”
The policy was lapsed on July 19, 1929, for failure of the insured to pay a premium due March 22, 1929. No premiums were paid thereafter. Egan became insane as the result of pellagra and was totally and permanently disabled in 1927 before default in the payment of premiums and before he had reached sixty years of age. Notice of disability was not given to the company at the time the disability occurred because the insanity of the insured rendered him incompetent and unable to comply with that provision of the policy. Demand for payment on the policy was not made until February 16,1930, some seven months after the policy lapsed.
It is contended by appellant that, since Egan was insane and unable to personally furnish proof of his disability, that condi-1 tion of the policy was inoperative and waived. Therefore, she has the right to now make proof of the insured’s total disability while the policy was in force. This contention is untenable. The policy is plain and unambiguous. The contract clearly contemplates that, if for any reason the insured is unable to promptly make proof of his disability warranting the suspension of premiums and the payment of the annual installments, some one else in interest must do so for him. This is a condition precedent necessary to be complied with to fix liability under the policy. Tt is very material to the risk that proof of total disability be furnished promptly and while the policy is kept in force by the payment of premiums. The provisions of the policy so requiring are not to be considered waived or rendered inoperative simply because of misfortune overtaking the insured. Bergholm v. Peoria Life Ins. Co., 284 17. S. 189, 52 S. Ct. 230, 76 L. Ed. 416.
Affirmed.

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

Answer: 0