Task: songer_appfed

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 "the federal government, its 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.

PER CURIAM.
Adan M. Masga and his children appeal from an adverse determination of the ownership of land on the Island of Rota. They contend that his children were not given notice of a hearing conducted by the Land Commission of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. They say that Masga's daughter had been appointed as his representative and that the appellee took advantage of her absence to obtain Masga's land by trickery.
In the late 1960's and early 1970's, Adan M. Masga showed signs of what the trial court characterized as "mental disorientation." One such sign was his sale of some land for inadequate consideration. Accordingly, Adan's children-appellants Carmen M. Pangelinan, Santiago C. Masga and Adan C. Masga, Jr.-took steps in March 1972 to obtain power to act on his behalf in his land dealings. Adan swore to an "affidavit" appointing his daughter Carmen "land trustee of all my properties on Rota • ." and executed a power of attorney granting Carmen the power to act for him in his land dealings. The "affidavit" was prepared by a member of the Land Commission and was filed with the Commission.
Shortly before he executed these documents, Adan applied to the Land Commission for registration of a parcel of land on the island of Rota that he lived on and farmed. The Land Commission has jurisdiction to determine and register title to land in the Trust Territory. See Trust Terr.Code §~ 101-120 (1980).
The Land Commission conducted a hearing on Adan's application in October 1972. Neither Carmen nor either of Adan's other children received notice of or were present at the hearing. At the hearing Adan signed an "affidavit" granting the parcel to appellee Antonia M. Tudela. The Commission in due course issued a Determination of Ownership recognizing Tudela as the owner of the parcel.
Appellants appealed the Commission's determination to the Commonwealth Trial Court. The trial court set aside the Commission's action, holding that the Commission should have given Adan's children notice of the hearing. Tudela appealed the trial court's decision to the Appellate Division of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands which reinstated the Land Commission's Determination of Ownership. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under 48 U.S.C. § 1694c (Supp. V 1981). See Camacho v. Civil Service Commission, 666 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir.1982).
Appellants contend that 67 Trust Terr. Code § 11O(1)(c), which provides that notice of land registration hearings is to be served "upon all parties shown by the preliminary inquiry to be interested . . .," gave Carmen a right to notice of the hearing.
We disagree. The actual notice of the hearing that Adan received satisfies § 110. Appellants argue only that Carmen's capacity as Adan's representative in land matters made her an "interested party" entitled to notice under § 110. But because Adan, her principal, received notice of the hearing, Carmen cannot complain that she, as agent, failed to receive notice.
If Adan had been adjudicated an incom-~ petent and a guardian had been appointed for him, § 110 might require that notice be given to his guardian. See, e.g., Hickey v. Naruth Realty Corp., 71 A.D.2d 668, 419 N.Y.S.2d 12 (1979); Goetz v. Gunsch, 80 N.W.2d 548 (N.D.1957); 41 Am.Jur.2d Incompetent Persons § 114. Carmen, however, was not his guardian. Moreover, the trial court did not find that Adan was incompetent at the time of the hearing. It found only a "serious question" as to his competency, which, as the Appellate Division of the District Court noted, falls short of a finding of incompetency. Therefore, there is no need to decide in this case whether notice to an incompetent person without a guardian satisfies § 110.
Title 67 Trust Terr.Code § 113 directs the Commission to appoint a guardian to represent any person that the Commission finds incompetent. The Commission did not abuse its discretion by failing to inquire into Adan’s competency at the time of the hearing. First, as the trial court found, Adan “may have appeared to be acting in a normal manner and in possession of his mental faculties” when he appeared at the hearing. Second, the “affidavit” that Adan filed with the Commission appointing Carmen his “land trustee” would not have given the Commission reason to question Adan’s competency. For all the Commission knew, the appointment had been made for the sake of convenience rather than out of concern for Adan’s competency, because Adan had himself executed the document, suggesting that he was competent to manage his affairs.
The judgment of the Appellate Division of the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands is affirmed.
. Mr. Masga's name is variously spelled as Adam, Adan, and Aldan.
. The island of Rota is now part of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The portions of the Trust Territory Code dealing with land registration have been replaced by the N. Mar. I. Land Commission Act of 1983, P.L. 3-79 (October 11, 1983), codified at ~`LMar.I. Code §~ 4211-4252 (1984)).

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officialss"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 0