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.

PER CURIAM.
Our decision in this case was deferred to await the outcome of cases pending in the Supreme Court which have now been decided.
We think that the findings of the Board that the Union’s maintenance of the agreements with Portsmouth Contractors Association and the employer, Consolidated Construction Company, and the .practice under them constituted a violation of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) and resulted in denying a job to Walter Pennington, are supported by substantial evidence.
The remedy was fashioned by the Board after Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors, 119 N.L.R.B. 883, and included the minimum safeguards therein stipulated as well as an order against the Union to reimburse the employees of Consolidated Construction Company for all monies illegally exacted from them.
The Supreme Court held that the Act did not authorize the Board to so fashion the remedy or order the reimbursement by the Union of the dues and fees paid to it by the employees.
In our opinion, however, the order to make Walter Pennington whole for any loss in pay was within the province of the Board and was justified under the evidence in the record.
Applying the decisions of the Supreme Court, Paragraph I. (a) 1. of the Order of the Board must be limited to discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by any agreement, act or practice that encourages union membership including any that conditions the hiring of applicants for employment or the retention of employees in their jobs on union membership or requires employers to grant preference to members of the union in respect to hire or tenure.
Paragraph I. (a) 2. of the Order reading as follows is deleted;
“2. Entering into, performing, maintaining, or otherwise giving effect to any agreement, or arrangement with the Portsmouth Contractors Association, its successor, Southern Olyo Contractors Association, the Consolidated Construction Company, or any other employer over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction which provides for an exclusive hiring hall but does not explicitly provide for the minimum safeguards stated in Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors, 119 N.L.R.B. 883.”
Paragraph II. (b) of the Order reading as follows is deleted:
“(b) Reimburse the employees of Consolidated Construction Company for monies illegally exacted from them in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section of this Decision and Order entitled ‘The Remedy.’ ”
The notice shall be changed accordingly.
Enforcement of the Board’s Order, as modified herein, is granted.
. Local 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, 81 S.Ct. 875; National Labor Relations Board v. News Syndicate Company, 81 S.Ct. 849; International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, 81 S.Ct. 855.

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

Answer: 2