Task: songer_numresp

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.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of respondents in the case. 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.

BIGGS, Chief Judge.
Vladimir Behr and Anne Livingston Behr filed notice of an appeal from an order of the court below filed on December 12, 1951 which, inter alia, denied their motion for leave to intervene as parties plaintiff. A previous motion for leave to intervene made by the Behrs also was denied by the court below and on appeal that decision was affirmed by this court. 190 F.2d 675. See 186 F.2d 1023, Appeal of Ginsburg. The case is presently scheduled for trial in the court below on Monday, January 14, 1952. The plaintiffs, Hirshorn and others, have moved to docket and dismiss the Behrs’ appeal. The Behrs, through their counsel, in open court on the argument on the motion to docket and dismiss the appeal, suggested and agreed that the appeal should be considered upon the merits at the same time that this court gave consideration to the merits of the motion to docket and dismiss. We adopt the suggestion.
The present application for leave to intervene in the court below is without merit, like the previous application, and like it was correctly denied by the trial court. D.C.W.D.Pa., 101 F.Supp. 549. The additional facts alleged by the Behrs to support the present application are irrelevant to the issue presented and are of such slight consequence as not to merit discussion here.
Since the order appealed from was an appealable order we will not dismiss the appeal. We will, however, order the appeal docketed and we will affirm the order complained of. We will further direct that the mandate go down forthwith. The trial set for January 14th should be proceeded with without further delay. The costs of the appeal will be charged against the Behrs.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 99