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.
Deborah Williams, a black woman, was hired as a probationary employee by the defendant who is the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. She started work as a docket clerk for United States District Court Judge Terry Shell on November 22, 1976. On April 29, 1977, the defendant told Williams that she would be terminated as of May 20, 1977. On May 13, 1977, Williams filed her complaint requesting an injunction prohibiting her termination and requiring the implementation of criteria in the court’s employment process which conform to the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. On May 19, 1977, Williams was given written notice of her termination and the reasons therefor. Her employment terminated the following day.
On July 14, 1977, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss Williams’ complaint or in the alternative a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and the facts asserted did not entitle the plaintiff to relief. That motion was supported by defendant’s affidavit. Williams did not respond to the motion. On August 1, 1977, the district court sustained the defendant’s motion to dismiss, stating that plaintiff failed to state a claim and under the facts could not state a claim. Plaintiff appeals.
Williams’ contention on appeal is that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits employment discrimination by the federal government and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4) gave her a cause of action when the defendant discharged her, allegedly because she is black.
Williams’ complaint was filed before she was actually discharged and her requested relief, an injunction against terminating her employment, is now moot. Since she did not amend her complaint nor respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, we do not believe that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint with regard to the request for injunctive relief. Cf. Black Unity League v. Miller, 394 U.S. 100, 89 S.Ct. 766, 22 L.Ed.2d 107 (1969).
Williams also sought an order requiring the implementation of criteria in the court’s employment process that conform with the Constitution and Title VII. Clerical positions such as that occupied by Williams are outside the competitive civil service and therefore are not covered by Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16. Furthermore, the facts alleged do not support a finding of a constitutional violation. Section 751(b) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides:
(b) The clerk may appoint, with the approval of the court, necessary deputies, clerical assistants and employees in such number as may be approved by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Such deputies, clerical assistants and employees shall be subject to removal by the clerk with the approval of the court.
Since positions such as that occupied by Williams are not covered under any merit or civil service system or by employment contracts, persons in those positions have no property interest protected by due process under the Constitution.
The order of the district court is affirmed.
. The letter informing Deborah Williams of the termination of her employment as deputy clerk in the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas gave the following reasons for her discharge: giving untruthful answers to questions at her initial employment interview; intentionally concealing and failing to reveal all the facts concerning the termination of her employment at Jefferson Hospital and her pending action in federal court against the hospital; failure to have a telephone installed at her residence despite continued requests that she do so; taking annual and sick leave as fast or faster than it had been earned; and other unsatisfactory areas in her work.
. The Honorable John K. Regan, Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by special assignment.

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