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.

DONALD RUSSELL, Circuit Judge:
Having waived a jury trial, Fred Robert Williams was convicted by the Court of possession of tools used to falsely make, forge, alter and counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2315. On appeal he makes the following assignments of error: (1) admission of incompetent evidence; (2) failure of the government to establish the requisite interstate nexus; and (3) insufficiency of the evidence. Finding no merit in any of these contentions, we affirm.
On October 17, 1974, four FBI agents arrived at defendant’s motel room in Henri-co County, Virginia, seeking to interview him in regard to certain bank robberies. After knocking and identifying themselves, the agents entered the room with defendant’s consent. During the course of the interview, the agents noticed a typewriter case in the corner of the room. Defendant informed the agents that it did not belong to him and that he had no idea to whom it belonged. The agents inquired if there were any other items in the room which did not belong to him and he indicated a brief case next to the night-stand. When asked by the agents if he objected to their opening the brief case he replied “no” since it was not his. The agents discovered in the brief case a checkwriter, credit cards, dozens of identification cards of people from all parts of the country, blank and cancelled checks, among other things. Defendant was then placed under arrest and advised that he would be taken to the FBI office, together with his belongings. Defendant proceeded to get toilet articles from a bag and one of the agents examined the contents of this bag to see if there were any weapons in it. He found a tube containing gold coins which he returned to the bag.
The agents later obtained a search warrant for the items which defendant admitted to be his. The search warrant listed “credit cards, blank checks, miscellaneous identification, and other paraphernalia used in the manufacture of fraudulent securities * * *.” A u-seal-it plastic card, a red telephone index directory, a Jet-Air employee identification card in the name of Cornelius A. Zino with an attached photo of defendant, several photographs of defendant and others, and the tube of gold coins were found in defendant’s belongings.
Defendant argues that the Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the items seized at the time of the agents’ interrogation of the defendant at the motel on the ground that it was a warrantless search without consent and prior to arrest; and further that all the items seized under the search warrant were not listed in the search warrant even though the agents knew they were there. The record, however, shows that defendant voluntarily admitted the agents into his motel room, disclaimed ownership of the brief case and the typewriter case and stated that he had no objection to a search of the cases. His disclaimer is analogous to abandonment and made the cases subject to seizure. Defendant must demonstrate that he comes within the constitutional protection by showing that he has standing, that his rights were violated, that his effects were unreasonably searched, and this he has failed to do. The evidence contained in the cases was therefore properly admitted.
As to the items seized under the search warrant, the Court granted defendant’s motion to exclude several of the items discovered pursuant to the search warrant for lack of relevance and the government concedes on appeal that the red telephone index directory, the photographs and the gold coins should not have been admitted because they were not described in the warrant. If, however, any improper articles were seized under the warrant, the error, if any, in their introduction was harmless, since there was more than ample other evidence from which the guilt of defendant could be found.
Defendant argues, also, that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. He bases this argument upon what he claims was an absence of any evidence of interstate commerce nexus as required by the statute. The finding of the District Court, however, that a connection with interstate commerce was shown is sufficiently supported by the record to sustain his conviction: It was stipulated that the checkwriter had been manufactured in Illinois and sold to a company in Iowa from which it had been stolen, — it was found in a locked brief case next to the night-stand in defendant’s motel room; by his own admission, the defendant was traveling through Richmond, Virginia, from Los Angeles, California; his association with a woman registered at a motel who gave her home address as California; and, finally, the stolen checks from California and identification cards of people from all over the country found in the brief case.
Considering the sufficiency of the evidence, taking the view most favorable to the government, as we must, there is substantial evidence to support the findings of guilt in this case. United States v. Sherman (4th Cir. 1970) 421 F.2d 198, 199, cert. denied 398 U.S. 914, 90 S.Ct. 1717, 26 L.Ed.2d 78 (1970).
The judgment of the District’ Court is accordingly affirmed.
. There had been four bank robberies in the previous three months involving black males using rental vehicles with Virginia license tags. Since defendant fitted the broad profile, the agents had reason to believe that he might be a potential bank robber. This belief was reinforced by the fact that one of the robbery suspects was known to have stayed in a motel across the street from the motel where the defendant was staying.
. Defendant argues that he had just awakened and was effectively overpowered by the mere presence of the agents and was incapable of giving voluntary consent. However, there is ample testimony that defendant “motioned” the agents to enter. See, United States v. Watson (1976) 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598, 44 L.W. 4726.
. Woodring v. United States (10th Cir. 1966) 367 F.2d 968, 970; Elledge v. United States (9th Cir. 1966) 359 F.2d 404, 405; United States v. Grosso (3d Cir. 1966) 358 F.2d 154, 163; Dudley v. United States (D.C.Ga.1970) 320 F.Supp. 456, 462, n. 2; cf. Abel v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 217, 241, 80 S.Ct. 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 668. See, also, United States v. Watson, supra.

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