Task: songer_r_fiduc

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 "fiduciaries". 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.

EDGERTON, Associate Justice.
Appellant brought this proceeding in the District Court to compel appellees, the members of that court’s Committee on Admissions and Grievances, to certify him to the court for admission to its bar. After a hearing, the District Court dismissed his complaint on the ground that he had “failed to establish such qualifications as to character as to warrant his admission at this time to the bar of the court.”
Appellant had taken the bar examination four times, twice in 1937 and twice in 1938. The fourth time he passed. On each of his four applications he was asked whether he had ever been a party to or involved in any legal proceedings. If so, he was asked to state the facts fully. Each time his answer referred only to a judgment recovered against him in the Municipal Court. Three of the four application blanks contained the question “Have you ever applied for the right to practice before any Governmental department, bureau or commission?” In each case he answered “No.” In his latest application he answered “No” to the question “If admitted to such practice have any charges ever been preferred against you?”
In accordance with Rule 93(b) of the District Court, appellees proceeded to inquire whether appellant was of good moral character. They learned that he had formerly engaged for several years in representing claimants in trade-mark matters in the Patent Office; that in 1931 he was excluded from that practice, on charges of gross misconduct, by formal action of the Commissioner of Patents, after notice and a hearing at which he failed to appear; that he appealed to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia; and that that court, after a hearing which- appellant attended, sustained the order of the Commissioner.
Appellees thereupon gave appellant a full hearing. He was examined at length, and several witnesses testified by affidavit to his good character. Appellees found that he was lacking in that good moral character which should be possessed by members of the bar. Among other things they found that he had been guilty of gross misconduct in his Patent Office practice and that in failing to allude, in his applications for admission to the bar, to his exclusion from Patent Office practice and to the judicial proceedings which confirmed it, he had attempted to deceive appellees into believing that he had never been a party to such proceedings and that no charges had ever been preferred against him before any government bureau.
The evidence fully sustains the findings of the Committee and of the District Court. There is nothing in the record which either authorizes or inclines us to interfere with the court’s judgment. The matter concerns the integrity of the court’s bar. Within very wide limits, standards of fitness for membership in the bar of the District Court are for the District Court itself to establish and maintain. In our own opinion, appellant’s lack of candor in his repeated applications for admission to the bar is reason enough for his exclusion. If his statements in those applications were not expressly false, they carried false implications. If appellant has sufficient understanding to be a member of the bar he must have been aware of those implications. He expresses no regret for his statements. He does not attempt to excuse them as hasty or inadvertent; on the contrary, he attempts to justify them by saying that he “was never admitted to practice before the United States Patent Office; it was not necessary to be admitted to pursue such matters as he pursued there.” One who repeatedly prevaricates or equivocates in legal documents is not qualified to be a member of the bar, for a lawyer whose word cannot be relied upon is a menace to clients, the courts, and the public. A Committee on Admissions and Grievances has no higher duty than that which appellees have discharged.
Affirmed.
Cf. New York Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 279 U.S. 310, 319, 49 S.Ct. 300, 73 L.Ed. 706; Matter of Yardum, 218 App. Div. 134, 218 N.Y.S. 6; Matter of Steinberg, 233 App.Div. 301, 252 N.Y.S. 755.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 0