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.

HAYS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by defendants, Richard and Harry Gershman, from a summary judgment awarding plaintiff, Weyerhaeuser Company, $136,007.97 plus interest, the amount of certain notes of the Richard Lumber Corporation that defendants, officers and stockholders of the corporation, had guaranteed.
Between December, 1961, and April 27, 1962, the Weyerhaeuser Company sold to the Richard Lumber Corporation lumber priced at $136,007.97. In May, 1962, at the request of Weyerhaeuser, the defendants signed guaranties of “any notes, bills or accounts due or to become due to said Weyerhaeuser Company for merchandise heretofore or hereafter at anytime sold or delivered by it” to Richard Lumber Corporation. At the end of August, 1962, Richard Lumber Corporation executed two notes in favor of Weyerhaeuser for $136,007.97. When the corporation defaulted on the notes, Weyerhaeuser proceeded against the Gershmans on their guaranties.
In their answer defendants alleged three affirmative defenses: (1) that the guaranties were given without consideration, (2) that Weyerhaeuser’s agent agreed when the notes were executed that Weyerhaeuser would not bring suit to enforce the notes, and (3) that another action was pending between Weyerhaeuser and defendants on the same cause of action. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, defendants contended that the issues thus raised by their answer were triable issues of fact, and that therefore summary judgment was improper. After reviewing the pleadings, affidavits submitted by both sides, the notes and the guaranty, and depositions taken in the other action, the court concluded that there were no genuine issues of fact requiring trial. We affirm that determination.
Defendants’ contention that there is a disputed issue of fact concerning whether consideration was given for the guaranties is supported only by formal allegations in their pleadings. These allegations are insufficient to prevent entry of summary judgment. Moreover, the notes here in issue consolidated prior notes and extended their due date, as Harry Gershman testified in a deposition taken for the other action. This extension of credit constituted consideration for the guaranties.
Defendants asserted in their answer and in an affidavit filed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment that Weyerhaeuser’s credit manager, Gallo, assured them at the time of the execution of the notes that Weyerhaeuser would not present the notes for payment at maturity nor bring any action on them. In his deposition, however, Harry Gershman stated that when he indicated his doubts that Richard Lumber Corporation would be able to make payment on the due date, Mr. Gallo replied: “Let’s not worry about that. I want to consolidate the whole account to show your indebtedness, and when we arrive, when we get to December 28th, we will see what we can do.” This detailed description of the statements upon which defendants rely refutes their conclusionary allegations of an agreement not to sue. Moreover, the alleged agreement was contemporaneous with the execution of the notes and is inconsistent with the definite due date on the notes. Proof of such an agreement is excluded by the parol evidence rule. Oleet v. Pennsylvania Exchange Bank, 285 App.Div. 411, 137 N.Y.S.2d 773, 782 (1st Dep’t 1955); Camardella v. Eastern Parkway Roller Skating Rink, Inc., 271 App.Div. 985, 68 N.Y.S.2d 82 (2d Dep’t 1947).
The defense that another action is pending on the same cause of action is equally without merit. The prior action was also on the Gershmans’ guaranties but was based on different notes. Defendants acknowledged the difference in the claims involved in the two suits by defending the first on the ground that the notes sued upon there had been superseded by other notes, the notes sued on here.
Affirmed.
. The use of these depositions was proper under Rule 56(c), and under Rule 26(d) (4), which provides that “when an action in any court of the United States or of any state has been dismissed and another action involving the same subject matter is afterward brought between the same parties * * * all depositions lawfully taken and duly filed in the former action may be used in the latter as if originally taken therefor.” Under Rule 26(d) (4) dismissal of the prior action is not required. Batelli v. Kagan & Gaines Co., 236 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1956).
. Subsequent to the entry of the summary judgment below, the following two sentences were added to Rule 56(e):
“When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.”
The Advisory Committee on Rules explained that the amendment was in keeping with the original purpose of Rule 56 but was necessary to overcome the restrictive interpretation accorded Rule 56 in the Third Circuit. See United States Code Annotated, July, 1963 pamphlet, p. 512.
. Past consideration consisting of Weyerhaeuser’s prior extension of credit to Richard Lumber Corporation is sufficient under New York law where the guaranty is in writing and states the consideration. N. Y. Personal Property Law, McKinney’s Consol.Laws c. 41, § 33(3).

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