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.

CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge.
A two-count indictment was returned against defendant, charging him with distributing heroin on April 12 and May 1, 1973, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The jury found him guilty on both counts. He was given a 10-year sentence on Count I, plus a 3-year special parole term. An identical concurrent sentence was imposed on Count II.
The only issue raised on appeal is whether a portion of the court’s instruction 7, which was based on 21 U.S.C. § 885(b), was improper. Instruction 7 provided in pertinent part:
“In the absence of proof that a person is the duly authorized holder of an appropriate registration issued under the law involved in this case, he shall be presumed not to be the holder of such registration.”
Defendant attacks the presumption contained in the instruction and the fountainhead statute, claiming it violates his Fifth Amendment rights. However, we have twice held to the contrary with respect to an analogous provision of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 360a, now repealed). United States v. Rowlette, 397 F.2d 475 (7th Cir. 1968); United States v. Reiff, 435 F.2d 257 (7th Cir. 1970), certiorari denied, 401 U.S. 938, 91 S.Ct. 929, 28 L.Ed.2d 217. We adhere to those rulings.
As Judge Castle pointed out in Row-lette, the exception for authorized dealers may be equated with affirmative defenses. The percentage of heroin defendants who can make a plausible claim of registration is undoubtedly so low that it would be a substantial waste of resources to require the Government to prove non-registration in every case. It would be readily within defendant’s knowledge whether he had obtained an annual registration from the Attorney General, so that he could be fairly expected to adduce such proof. As noted in Rowlette, the Fifth Amendment is not violated because defendant’s exempt status could easily be established from a source independent of his own testimony.
Defendant relies on Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 29-54, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 1548, 23 L.Ed.2d 57. Following Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 87 L.Ed. 1519, the Court there held that a presumption is valid in a criminal case only when the fact presumed “is more likely than not to flow from” the fact on which the presumption is based. 395 U.S. 36, 89 S.Ct. 1548. Defendant’s reliance is misplaced for two reasons. Most important, the presumption in Leary went to the burden of persuasion; here only the burden of going forward with the evidence is shifted. Second, we understand the Leary opinion to be limited to so-called elements of the offense, and not to prevent Congress from creating affirmative defenses as to which the defendant bears the burden of going forward. Tot, on which Leary relied, was distinguished on this basis in Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 799, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1302. Leland held that it did not offend due process for the state to require defendants to prove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt, because sanity was not an element of the offense. Leland dealt with the burden of persuasion, and there is some current debate whether it was overruled sub silentio in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, with the focus in large part on whether sanity is an element of various offenses. See the conflicting opinions and collected authorities in United States v. Greene, 489 F.2d 1145 (D.C.Cir. 1973).
We need not join that debate. We refer to Leland only to indicate the distinction between elements of an offense and affirmative defenses. Even if Leland has been undercut with respect to the burden of persuasion, no doubt has been cast on its conclusion that the burden of going forward as to insanity is on defendant. 343 U.S. at 799, 72 S.Ct. 1002. And see Justice Frankfurter, joined by Justice Black, dissenting, id. at 804, 72 S.Ct. at 1010. More generally, we know of no authority suggesting that the state must disprove unlikely defenses in every case without waiting for defendant to raise them as issues. This is the distinction drawn in Rowlette by equating affirmative defenses to the principle established in McKelvey v. United States, 260 U.S. 353, 357, 43 S.Ct. 132, 134, 67 L.Ed. 301, that if a defendant comes within “an exception made by a proviso or other distinct clause,” he must set it up and establish it as a defense.
We do not mean to avoid the issue by hiding behind conclusory labels. Unless defendant distributed the heroin he possessed, the crime charged has not been committed. Similarly, unless he failed to register with the Attorney General, the crime has not been committed. The labels “element” and “affirmative defense” alone do not tell us why distribution is an element of the offense which the Government must always prove, whereas non-registration is not an element and need be proved only if the defendant first offers evidence of the affirmative defense of registration. Allocating the burden of going forward is generally a matter for the legislature, although the due process clause may impose some limits on legislative discretion in this area. Constitutionally, it is immaterial whether Congress chose to state a rule and its exception in one clause or in separate clauses.
The legislative intent here is quite clear. The burden of going forward with the evidence as to registration is explicitly placed on defendants. Once it is recognized that the legislature can create affirmative defenses, no plausible contention can be made that registration with the Attorney General cannot be so treated. The widespread illicit sales of narcotics support this Congressional technique of winnowing the illegitimate from the legitimate distributors of drugs. More importantly, there is no unfairness in this presumption for the reasons stated in the fourth paragraph of this opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
. 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) proscribes the distribution of controlled substances such as heroin “Except as authorized by this sub-chapter” through registration with the Attorney General and pursuant to order forms he prescribes (21 U.S.C.A. §§ 822 and 828).
. 21 U.S.C.A. § 885(b), on which this instruction was based, provides:
“In the absence of proof that a person is the duly authorized holder of an appropriate registration or order form issued [by the Attorney General] under this subchap-ter, he shall be presumed not to be the holder of such registration or form, and the burden of going forward with the evidence with respect to such registration or form shall be upon him.”

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