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.

Opinion:
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES OF NORTHWEST OHIO, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 80-3604.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 17, 1981.
Decided Sept. 17, 1982.
Richard S. Baker, Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.
Arthur F. James, Rosen, Shinaberry, James & Weiher, Toledo, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.
Before JONES, Circuit Judge, WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge, and SILER, District Judge.
The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
SILER, District Judge.
Collins group, a subdivision of Rockwell International Corp. (hereinafter “Collins”), has appealed from a directed verdict granted in favor of the defendant-appellee Regional Medical Services of Northwest Ohio, Inc. (hereinafter “REMSNO”). The issue to be decided in this case is whether the district court erred in granting a directed verdict. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
The facts giving rise to this controversy began on April 7, 1975, when Collins contracted with the Medical College of Ohio at Toledo (hereinafter “MCO”) to furnish and install an Emergency Medical Communication System for an area of Northwest Ohio. On July 15, 1975, MCO assigned the rights and delegated the duties under the contract to REMSNO, with the knowledge and approval of Collins. Prior to the original completion date (October, 1975), several problems developed. Building permits, authorizations and Federal Commission licenses were not obtained by either MCO or REM-SNO, although MCO was obligated under the contract to obtain all “necessary licenses and permits required under the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration.”
It became apparent that some of the equipment installed by Collins (according to specifications prepared and furnished by MCO) would be insufficient to meet the needs of the emergency system. However, it does not appear that the items installed by Collins were defective. Approximately six months after the contracted completion date Collins informed REMSNO that it would be impossible to proceed further under the original contract due to the aforementioned problems and resulting delays. The system was eventually completed by Motorola under another contract. On August 23,1977, Collins filed suit against MCO and REMSNO for breach of contract. Collins alleged it was due $69,442.00 under a ten per cent withholding clause and $79,-852.00 for additional work performed, for a total of $149,294.00. The district court concluded the Ohio Court of Claims had jurisdiction over the suit against MCO and directed a verdict accordingly. After presentation of the evidence, the court also directed a verdict in favor of REMSNO from which Collins has appealed.
On a motion for a directed verdict, the court should consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was made, and give it the advantage of every fair and reasonable inference that the evidence can justify. Continental Ore v. Union Carbide & Carbon Co., 370 U.S. 690, 82 S.Ct. 1404, 8 L.Ed.2d 777 (1962); Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 452 F.2d 1095 (6th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 919, 92 S.Ct. 1773, 32 L.Ed.2d 119 (1972). A directed verdict is appropriate if there is a complete absence of pleading or proof on an issue or issues material to the cause of action or where there are no controverted issues of fact upon which reasonable men could differ. Edwards v. United States, 140 F.2d 526 (6th Cir. 1944). In this case, however, there was a factual issue presented to the court below. Therefore, the directed verdict was erroneously granted.
The issue which should have been presented to the jury was the question of who was responsible for the delays which led to this action. Collins argued that it was prevented from fully performing its obligations by the delays which were the fault of MCO and REMSNO. REMSNO argued that it was not in a position to become responsible under the contract until it received federal funding for the project in December of 1975. REMSNO states that the July, 1975, assignment from MCO to REMSNO was an “assignment in name only” or a “paper assignment.” While REMSNO might not have been to blame for the delays, it apparently became legally responsible as of the date of assignment from MCO. In reference to the delays which occurred, the district court stated, “There is just no evidence that would show that that was the fault of the plaintiff [Collins] any more than it was the fault of the defendant.”
As this was a case filed under the diversity jurisdiction of the court, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, state law controls. Erie R. R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). Moreover, as the contract provided that Ohio law governed, it is to be applied here.
M Where one party to a contract hinders or prevents the completion of a contract, this constitutes a breach of the contract. See Rohde v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 682 F.2d 667, 670 (6th Cir. 1980) (applying Ohio law); Gridiron Steel Co. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 361 F.2d 791 (6th Cir. 1966) (applying Ohio law); Suter v. The Farmers Fertilizer Co., 100 Ohio St. 403, 126 N.E. 304 (1919). As REM-SNO stood in the shoes of MCO as its successor to the contract, if MCO prevented Collins from installing its equipment, then it cannot repudiate the contract by proclaiming that Collins did not complete the task on time. In light of the fact that both sides had presented evidence to indicate who was at fault, the issue was clearly a fact to be resolved by the jury.
The contract provided that any changes requiring additional work must be made in writing prior to such work commencing. Collins provided additional services; however, the writing required was not met for certain additional work. It is the position of Collins that REMSNO requested, agreed to and had knowledge of the additional work that was being performed by Collins and such knowledge constituted a waiver of the writing requirement. Expanded Metal Fire-Proofing Co. v. Noel Construction, 87 Ohio St. 428, 101 N.E. 348 (1913).
Under Ohio law the construction to be given a written contract is a matter of law to be determined by the court. Alexander v. Buckeye Pipeline Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241, 374 N.E.2d 146 (1978). Obviously, there could be an oral modification of such a contractual provision. See United Steel Co. v. Casey, 262 F. 889 (6th Cir. 1920) (applying Ohio law). Here, however, there was no evidence of waiver or variance from paragraph ten of the contract. Once, when a change was authorized, on October 30, 1975, it was accomplished in writing and payment was made by REMSNO. Thus, that charge is not an issue in this litigation.
On all other occasions when Collins alleges it incurred other expenses, it did not demonstrate in the proof that REMSNO acquiesced or approved the additional changes. There were communications from Collins to REMSNO about the charges, but REMSNO never did agree to the changes. Therefore, there could be no waiver, and the district court properly decided this in favor of REMSNO.
For the reasons set forth above, the holding of the district court is REVERSED and the action is REMANDED with instructions that the court below should grant a new trial consistent with this opinion.
. This was actually a novation, which is a substituted contract which includes as a party one who was not a party to the original contract. Under this substitution, or novation, the breach of the new duty on the part of REMSNO does not give rise to a right of action on the old duty. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 280 (1979); 6 Corbin, Contracts § 1297 (1962).
. That provision provides:
M.C.O. may from time to time, by written instructions or drawings, make changes in the specifications, require additional work or direct omission of work previously ordered, and the provisions of the contract shall apply to all such changes, modifications or additions with the same effect as though embodied in the proposal. No change shall be deemed to be made pursuant to this clause unless such change is ordered in writing. If any change causes an increase or decrease in the cost or of the time required for the performance of any part of the work, whether changed or not changed by such order, an equitable adjustment shall be made in the contract price and schedule. Prior to commencement of any extra work or changed work. M.C.O. and COLLINS shall negotiate the necessary adjustment to the contract price and delivery schedule.

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.

Choices:

Answer: 0