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.

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant Orlando Coriz Jr. appeals a summary judgment entered against him on his procedural due process claim on the grounds that the defendants were qual-ifiedly immune. We affirm.
In the fall of 1987, defendant Guil-len, an aide to defendant Martinez, a gym teacher at Española Valley High School, threw Coriz to the floor in an effort to maintain discipline. Coriz suffered a broken arm and filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, inter alia, that his right to procedural due process had been violated because he had no adequate post-deprivation remedy. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim, finding that they were quali-fiedly immune because the inadequacy of Coriz’s post-deprivation remedy was not clearly established.
In a situation such as this, “where the State is truly unable to anticipate and prevent a random deprivation of a liberty interest,” Zinermon v. Burch, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 975, 987, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990), “postdeprivation tort remedies are all the process that is due, simply because they are the only remedies the State could be expected to provide,” id. at 985. “[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation ... by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3204, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984).
“[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions[ ] generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). “[Ojnce a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant has violated clearly established law.” Hannula v. City of Lakewood, 907 F.2d 129, 131 (10th Cir.1990).
Coriz has failed to show that it was clearly established that New Mexico did not provide an adequate post-deprivation remedy. As this court noted in Garcia by Garcia v. Miera, 817 F.2d 650, 656 (10th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 959, 108 S.Ct. 1220, 99 L.Ed.2d 421 (1988), federal judges in New Mexico had split on the question of whether the state provided adequate post-deprivation remedies for students whose procedural due process rights were allegedly violated by excessive punishment.
Coriz argues that the Harlow inquiry into whether the law was clearly established should apply only to the defendants’ acts, not to the adequacy of the remedies available to redress those acts. We concede that this is an unusual application of qualified immunity, but we conclude that the district court applied the law correctly. The right Coriz claims the defendants violated is not simply to be free from random, unauthorized deprivations of liberty, but to be free from such deprivations in the absence of adequate post-deprivation remedies. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 537, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1914, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) (“Nothing in [the Fourteenth] Amendment protects against all deprivations of life, liberty or property by the State. The Fourteenth Amendment protects only against deprivations ‘without due process of law.’ ”); see also Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. at 533, 104 S.Ct. at 3203 (“the state’s action is not complete until and unless it provides or refuses to provide a suitable postdeprivation remedy”). Because of the uncertain state of the law, the defendants’ “actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the right[] they are alleged to have violated.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
. Coriz’s substantive due process and other claims were tried to a jury, which found against him.
The defendants contend that the adverse verdict on the substantive due process claim "moots” Coriz’s procedural due process claim. We disagree. There are
three categories of corporal punishment. Punishments that do not exceed the traditional common law standard of reasonableness are not actionable; punishments that exceed the common law standard without adequate state remedies violate procedural due process rights; and, finally, punishments that are so grossly excessive as to be shocking to the conscience violate substantive due process rights, without regard to the adequacy of state remedies.
Garcia by Garcia v. Miera, 817 F.2d 650, 656 (10th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 959, 108 S.Ct. 1220, 99 L.Ed.2d 421 (1988). The jury’s decision that the punishment in this case did not reach the third level in no way foreclosed a finding that the punishment reached the second level.
. Coriz, quoting our statement in Garcia that "conflict is relevant to the Harlow inquiry, but not controlling,” 817 F.2d at 658, contends that the district erred by relying solely upon this split within New Mexico in concluding that the law was not clearly established. The Garcia rule only applies to interjurisdictional conflicts. See Lum v. Jensen, 876 F.2d 1385, 1389 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 867, 107 L.Ed.2d 951 (1990). When there is conflict within a jurisdiction, it cannot be doubted that the law there is not clearly established.
. The district court also could have certified to the New Mexico Supreme Court the question of whether Coriz had a state-law remedy. If the answer was affirmative, Coriz’s claim would fail, for the absence of an adequate post-deprivation remedy is an element of his claim.

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: 0