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.

STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
This is a typical case under § 503 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C.A. § 903, brought for the purpose of establishing the claimed United States citizenship of Tam Chung Fay and Tam Fay Hing, by their guardian ad litem Tam Dock Lung.
The first point on appeal is that the two boys for each of whom a declaration is sought were not allowed in the courtroom during the taking of the testimony. It is not denied that they were entitled to be in the courtroom but there is nothing in the point because an arrangement for their remaining outside was agreeable to all parties at the trial, including the attorney for the guardian ad litem.
The second point is that the trial court considered inconsistencies in the testimony of the alleged father and his brother regarding a fifth child of the father’s. It is claimed that since the fifth child was not a subject of the litigation, evidence to it was collateral to the issue and that a witness cannot be impeached upon a collateral matter. The point is not good for the reason that the issue was whether or not the boys were the sons of the alleged father. All details of family life which would bear upon that issue were admissible. The testimony of the alleged father and his brother clashed on some of the family details. The dates given showed that the father had been in China but six months when, according to him, a fifth child was born to his wife. Faced with this situation he replied, “He was a six month’s baby”. The trial court did not believe the testimony and, while the circumstance probably had its effect on the court’s mind, there were other inconsistencies in the case supporting the finding complained of, which finding we quote in the margin.
We find no error here. The next and last point is that “in view of the lack and failure of any evidence to the contrary adduced or introduced by the defendant”, the court should have declared the boys citizens of the United States. The trier of the fact declined upon good and sufficient cause to give credence to the testimony.
Affirmed.
1952 Revision, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1503.
. “The evidence adduced by each of said plaintiffs and their witnesses, Tam Dock Lung, alleged father; and Tam Ilin Soon, alleged brother, contains so many discrepancies relating to subjects about which each and all of said persons and witnesses should be in agreement, and the credibility of the testimony of each of said plaintiffs and of each of said witnesses has been so impeached that the Court does not believe the testimony of each of said plaintiffs or said witnesses and there is no credible evidence to support plaintiffs’ claims that they are United States citizens.”

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