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:
On the morning of July 5, 1972, Officer Bobby Sides, an Austin policeman, received an anonymous phone call from a person who stated that a large quantity of marijuana was being grown in the back yard of 8306 High Oak Drive in Austin, Texas. Based on this tip by an informant of unproven reliability, Officer Sides went to a vacant lot which abutted the residence and looked through an eight foot privacy fence and saw several hundred marijuana plants. Officer Sides then obtained a search warrant and appellee was arrested upon execution of the warrant.
Appellee was convicted for possession of marijuana in the 167th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, wherein he received a ten (10) year probated sentence. On January 22,1973, a pretrial hearing was conducted on appellee’s motion to suppress evidence on the grounds that Officer Sides had conducted a search in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. After hearing extensive evidence the state court took the motion under advisement and ordered counsel for appellee to file a written brief in support of his motion to suppress. On the morning of April 3, 1973, the case came on for trial on the merits and additional testimony was received on the still pending motion of the appellee to suppress. At the close of the state’s case the state court denied the appellee’s motion to suppress. The state court judge noted that he felt that it was an “extremely close” case and that he wanted the appellate courts of the state to have the opportunity to speak on the issue. The issue was presented to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and they affirmed. See George v. State, 509 S.W.2d 347 (1974).
On October 17, 1974, appellee filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. Section 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. After receipt of appellant’s answer in the district court appellee’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was granted on June 30, 1975. The district court concluded that when Officer Sides peered through the fence surrounding appellee’s back yard he conducted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. That order was stayed pending review in this court. We reverse.
In Stone v. Powell, - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 48 L.Ed.2d -, 44 U.S.L.W. 5313 (1976) the question presented was “whether a federal court should consider, in ruling on a petition for habeas corpus relief filed by a state prisoner, a claim that evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial, when he has previously been afforded an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his claim in the state courts.” Id. at-, 96 S.Ct. at 3039, at 5313-5314. After examination of the history of the “Great Writ” in light of the nature and purpose of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, the court held “that where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.” Id. at -, 96 S.Ct. at 3045, at 5317. A review of the record in this case demonstrates beyond doubt that appellee received a full and fair hearing in the state court on his Fourth Amendment claim. As a matter of fact, it was the only issue disputed by appellee.
Accordingly, the district court order granting appellee habeas corpus relief is hereby
REVERSED.

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

Answer: 1