Task: songer_appfed

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 appellants 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 appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

MORTON, Circuit Judge.
This is an action on a war risk insurance policy. The District Judge submitted the case to a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with a special finding that the plaintiff became permanently and totally disabled on October 11, 1918. The principal question presented by this appeal is whether the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict.
The plaintiff enlisted in the Navy in August, 1918, and was honorably discharged in December of the same year, having served two and one-half months. He took out a policy of war risk insurance which took effect on September 25, 1918, and expired (including the grace period) on March 2, 1919. The present suit was instituted on June 5, 1935, about sixteen years and three months after the termination of the insurance. The plaintiff now asserts that during this whole period he has been totally and permanently disabled.
Undisputed evidence showed the following facts: The petitioner was discharged from military service, as has been said, on December 10, 1918. Beginning in the latter part of the same month he went to work at his prewar occupation in the factory of the New Home Sewing Machine Company, and he worked there the rest of that year and all but about 2 weeks of the following year. During the year 1919 his weekly, wages were strikingly regular, about $20 per week, and amounted to $1,044.81. In October, 1920, he married, and up to the time of trial had had nine children. In 1921 he applied for and obtained vocational training, carrying on part of it at the Sewing Machine Company. This vocational work was continued from February, 1921, until July, 1922, a year and five months. In March, 1923, he resumed vocational training in poultry farming, and in April, 1923, as an electrician, which he continued without interruption until December 31, 1925, two and a half years, when he was declared rehabilitated. Beginning January, 1926, and continuing without interruption until July, 1927, about eighteen months, he worked at his old employment at the Sewing Machine Company and earned according to its payrolls $2,174. The work records covering the period from July, 1927, until the factory closed in 1930 have been destroyed, but the plaintiff appears to have been working in the factory during all that time. From March, 1934 until June, 1935, he worked regularly as a laborer on emergency relief projects; he then operated a small secondhand furniture store; and from January, 1936, until February, 1937, twelve months — during which period he was prosecuting this suit on the claim that he was totally and permanently disabled — he worked as a laborer on PWA projects. There was medical evidence that during this entire period he was permanently and totally disabled. With what signification as applied to the plaintiff that expression may have been used does not appear. But it is abundantly certain that it was not used in the sense in which it is used in ordinary speech, or in the policy in suit.
In Lumbra v. United States, 290 U.S. 551, at page 561, 54 S.Ct. 272, 276, 78 L.Ed. 492, it was said that, “in the absence of clear and satisfactory evidence explaining, excusing, or justifying it, petitioner’s long delay before bringing suit is to be taken as strong evidence that he was not totally and permanently disabled before the policy lapsed.” Butler, J.
In United States v. Spaulding, 293 U.S. 498, 55 S.Ct. 273, 276, 79 L.Ed. 617, it was said that plaintiff’s failure to sue for nearly nine years “strongly suggests that he had not suffered total permanent disability covered by the policy.” To the same effect in Miller v. United States, 294 U.S. 435, at page 441, 55 S.Ct. 440, 442, 79 L.Ed. 977, “His long delay before bringing suit is wholly incompatible with a belief on his part that he was totally and permanently disabled during the periodwhile his policy was in force. * * * If petitioner thought himself totally and permanently disabled, it is difficult to understand why he waited tweve years before attempting to assert his rights.” Sutherland, J.
The undisputed facts give point to these quotations. To summarize: During the year following the plaintiff’s discharge from service he worked almost steadily at his prewar occupation and earned more than $1,000; the next year he married; he was then employed more than four years in vocational training, at the end of which he was declared rehabilitated; following which he worked uninterruptedly eighteen months at his prewar employment and earned nearly $2,174. “Manifestly work performed may be such as conclusively to negative total permanent disability at the earlier time.” Butler, J., Lumbra. v. United States, 290 U.S. 551, 560, 54 S.Ct. 272, 276, 78 L.Ed. 492. It does so in the present case. See, too, United States v. Andersen, 1 Cir., 88 F.2d 291; United States v. Alvord, 1 Cir., 66 F.2d 455, cert. denied, 291 U.S. 661, 54 S.Ct. 376, 78 L.Ed. 1053; United States v. Brown, 1 Cir., 76 F.2d 352; United States v. McGrory, 1 Cir., 63 F.2d 697, cert. denied, 289 U.S. 742, 53 S.Ct. 692, 77 L.Ed. 1489, and many others.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed, the verdict is set aside and the case is remanded to that court for a new trial.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officialss"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1