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 "state governments, their 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.

Opinion:
Richard Edward MADISON, Petitioner, v. Ralph H. TAHASH, Warden Minnesota State Prison, Respondent.
No. 18331.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
April 18, 1966.
Richard E. Madison, in pro. per.
Robert W. Mattson, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Minn., for respondent.
Before MATTHES and MEHAFFY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Richard Edward Madison, an inmate of the Minnesota State Prison at Stillwater, Minnesota, seeks appointment by this court of an attorney to prosecute an appeal in forma pauperis from an order of the United States District Court denying his application for writ of habeas corpus.
At the outset, we note that the District Court refused to issue a certificate of probable cause which is a requisite to an appeal here. Curtis v. Bennett, 351 F.2d 931, 933 (8th Cir. 1965); McGee v. Eyman, 310 F.2d 230, 231 (9th Cir. 1962); Ramsey v. Hand, 309 F.2d 947, 948 (10th Cir. 1962); Johnson v. Mayo, 256 F.2d 761 (5th Cir. 1958); Bell v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 245 F.2d 170 (4th Cir. 1957); Sessions v. Manning, 227 F.2d 324, 325 (4th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 1008, 76 S.Ct. 653, 100 L.Ed. 870 (1956); Farmer v. Skeen, 222 F.2d 948, 949 (4th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 864, 76 S.Ct. 108, 100 L.Ed. 766 (1955); 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253.
Nonetheless, but strictly on an ad hoc basis, and not to serve as a precedent for future handling of similar cases, we have elected to treat petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel as an application for certificate of probable cause.
Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the state court of the crime of robbery in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment on January 23, 1956. He was represented at trial by the public defender and did not appeal his conviction to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Thereafter, petitioner brought habeas corpus proceedings in both the District and Supreme Courts of Minnesota. His petition in each court, involving the same questions as are present here, was denied by the District Court and the Supreme Court of Minnesota as being frivolous.
In all of his habeas applications, petitioner has alleged that he did not have the assistance of counsel at his arraignment in the state court on January 5, 1956, and because of this he was denied the right to argue an illegal detention in the city jail ten days prior to arraignment; and denied the right to file a petition at said arraignment submitting his illegal arrest, search and seizure.
The transcript of the proceedings at arraignment is contained in the original files of the federal district court, and reflect that petitioner was not represented by counsel at arraignment. He was asked by the court if he wanted to enter a plea to which query he stated that he pleaded not guilty, whereupon he was arraigned and a discussion was had as to his representation by counsel. The trial court advised petitioner that he had an absolute choice of counsel, or, failing to procure one, the court would appoint the public defender. Petitioner mentioned a private attorney he would like to employ but intimated he might not be able to obtain his services due to his lack of funds. The prosecutor was advised to contact the attorney of petitioner’s choice and see if he would handle the case, and further to provide petitioner with an opportunity to contact any other lawyer he might desire and sufficient time would be allowed for this purpose. As it developed, petitioner did not employ counsel and the public defender was appointed to defend him.
The District Court in a memorandum decision (Madison v. Tahash, 249 F.Supp. 600) exhaustively reviewed the legal aspects of this case and concluded that arraignment is not a critical stage in Minnesota and that petitioner could not have been prejudiced by being arraigned and pleading not guilty at arraignment without counsel for the reason that under the Minnesota procedure a plea entered without benefit of counsel does not operate to irrevocably waive any defenses or objections that petitioner might have had at this stage of the proceedings. The District Court cited State ex rel. Lacklines v. Tahash, 267 Minn. 237, 126 N.W.2d 646 (1964) and State v. Perra, 266 Minn. 545, 125 N.W.2d 44 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 982, 84 S.Ct. 1889, 12 L.Ed.2d 749 (1964), as supportive of the right of a defendant to raise the desired defenses after arraignment and plea and when represented by appointed counsel. Also, the District Court noted that the Minnesota Supreme Court has concluded that arraignment is not a critical stage of trial in that state. State v. Roy, 266 Minn. 6, 122 N.W.2d 615 (1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 956, 84 S.Ct. 445, 11 L.Ed.2d 315 (1963).
The well considered opinion of Judge Earl R. Larson (249 F.Supp. 600) more elaborately recites the facts and profoundly reviews the authorities leading to his conclusion that a writ of habeas corpus should not issue. We agree with Judge Larson’s analysis of the cases cited as well as the result reached.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that petitioner was deprived of any constitutional right by his plea of not guilty at arraignment. We, therefore, deny petitioner’s application for certificate of probable cause.
. The last sentence in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253 provides:
“An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding where the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court, unless the justice or judge who rendered the order or a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of probable cause.”

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1