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.

PER CURIAM.
The only evidence for the prosecution was that, while the officers were present on the premises, the stills being then in operation, the defendant appeared, and upon inquiry said that he was the owner. The defense proved that the title to the land had once been in the Grillo Building Company, of which the defendant was presumably the owner, but that it had been conveyed to the defendant’s daughter. It also offered in evidence a lease, purporting to be signed by one Cantilupo before the deed just mentioned was executed, but this the judge refused to receive, because only the lessee had signed it.
It seems to us that the exclusion of the lease was fatal to the verdict. Perhaps the mere existence of two stills in operation upon premises would prima facie be enough to support the verdict, if the accused were in possession. Certainly it would not be enough unless he was, and possession was the vital issue in the cause on any showing. We do not say that even then a case was made, but only that it was not if Cantilupo was a bona fide lessee. Hence it became of critical consequence that the defendant should have the full benefit of any evidence showing that he was not in possession. While it is true that he testified to receiving rent from Cantilupo and to his being the tenant, and while the execution of the lease depended wholly upon his testimony, Cantilupo not being called, still it is impossible to say that the lease itself might not have so far corroborated his stray as to turn the scale. We are not disposed to stretch at unimportant circumstances, yet it is inherent in any fair trial that the accused should be allowed the benefit of his evidence. The ease for the prosecution was tenuous at best; an exclusion, which might have been harmless in another setting, may have had genuine importance here.
The fact that the copy offered in evidence was signed only by the lessee did not make it incompetent, Doe v. Pulman, 3 Q. B. 622; Carroll v. Peake, 1 Pet. 18, 7 L. Ed. 34 (semble); Cleveland & T. R. Co. v. Perkins, 17 Mich. 296.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

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