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.

MOORE, Circuit Judge:
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) petitions for enforcement of its order directed against District 65, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (the Union) requiring the Union to cease and desist from entering the premises of the four employers directly involved in this case and any other employers in the geographic area of its jurisdiction, “uninvited or over the protests of the employers, during working hours, and by and through members of such groups going to the work places of the employees and there either orally or by distribution of literature, soliciting their support of, or membership in, the Union, thereby preventing said employees from engaging in their normal work, and making threats, either veiled or direct, of violence to any employee or other person in the premises, or of adverse action respecting their employment; and shoving or pushing or in any other manner restricting the freedom of action of any such other person.”
The Board adopted the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner. 157 NLRB No. 52.
The trouble started when the Union decided to try to organize and to bring into its Union the employees of four companies in New York City, engaged in the Direct Mail Industry. The operation was carried out with military precision. Four organizers were employed by the Union, each to lead the attack within his “target area.” The plan, essentially the same in all four cases, was for the organizer, accompanied by a sizable group of persons acting on behalf of the Union, to descend upon, and “without invitation or permission” to enter, the offices of the four companies during working hours and by haranguing, by threats, and by the dissemination of Union literature, to urge the employees to join their Union. A few specific incidents, all as found by the Trial Examiner and adopted by the Board, suffice to illustrate the aggravated character of the Union’s conduct.
B. Brown Associates, Inc.
At about 11:00 A.M. on March 24, 1965, not less than 25 men and women, representing the Union, without permission “came swarming in” the plant of B. Brown, moved to the places where the employees were working, talked to the employees concerning the Union, and handed them Union literature. When requested to leave, one of the group said, “You can’t do anything about it, if you want to, you call the police.” Naturally, because of the commotion, production came to a standstill. The Examiner found, upon credible testimony, that the Union’s conduct violated Section 8(b) (1) (A).
Saint John Associates, Inc.
On March 26, 1965, a Union group “probably more than 25,” unannounced and uninvited, using the front elevator, entered the Saint John premises, went to the work stations of the employees and urged them to join the Union. They refused to leave when so requested. At the same time, using accepted military strategy, another group of about 12 men made an assault from the rear, using a freight elevator and a rear stairway. Mrs. Christoverson, a Vice-President of Saint John, attempting to prevent them from entering the premises, was bodily shoved aside. When she, in turn, placed her hands on the full-time Union organizer leader in an effort to push or ease him out of the plant, anomalously it was this gentleman who became so fearful of bodily harm at the hands of this lady and so suddenly mindful of orderly procedures that he threatened her by saying, “If you don’t take your hand off me, I’ll have you arrested for assault.”
Another Vice-President actually had to threaten to call the police. In brief, the Examiner’s conclusions that for approximately two hours, work came to a virtual standstill, that several employees were frightened and in fear of bodily harm at the hands of the Unionists and that their acts and statements were clearly viola-tive of Section 8(b) (1) (A), are supported by substantial proof.
Columbia Letter Co., Inc.
The assault here on the morning of March 26, 1965 was led by an advance guard of three, quickly followed by some fifteen. Ignoring requests to leave, they went around the plant, handing out literature and talking to employees. It was necessary to call the police.
Mail & Media, Inc.
Learning of these raids, this company hired an armed uniformed guard to protect its premises against unauthorized entrance. In the afternoon of March 29, 1965 some twenty-five Union members and agents, finding the only unlocked door, pushed the guard aside (one threatening to “kill him with his own gun”; another “to close the place up”) and created a commotion. Work was interrupted and threats were hurled at management. Two women alone in a large room who failed to sign cards were surrounded by eight or nine Union representatives who threatened to return and “shut the place.”
Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act forbids a Union from restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under section 7, one of which rights is “to refrain from any or all of such [collective bargaining] activities.”
The conclusions of the Trial Examiner and the Board that the Union’s conduct, which included threats and physical violence, constituted a violation of section 8(b) (1) (A) are supported by overwhelming proof. If the much used phrase “law and order” is to have any meaning in our society, the Board’s decision supporting these words must be enforced.
The manner in which the Union proceeded justifies the broadest type of order.
Enforcement granted.

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