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:
Adrian JOHNSON, Appellant, v. O. B. ELLIS, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Appellee.
No. 19058.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 8, 1961.
Bernard A. Golding, Houston, Tex., for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Tex., Lee P. Ward, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and HUTCHESON and RIVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner-appellant was convicted of murder in the Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas, and sentenced to death. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Johnson v. State, 1960, 336 S.W.2d 175. Certiorari was denied, with Mr. Justice Douglas dissenting. Johnson v. Texas, 1960, 364 U.S. 927, 81 S.Ct. 355, 5 L.Ed.2d 267. In the petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, it is alleged:
“Petitioner’s judgment and sentence to death violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States on at least three specific grounds:
“(a) It is based on a coerced and forced confession obtained from Petitioner by a group of Police officers and other law enforcement agents after protracted questioning, during which time he was denied counsel, access to family and friends, was not advised of his rights and was detained without any authority, contrary to the spirit and requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment;
“(b) that he was sentenced to his doom solely on the basis of a ‘confession’ obtained by threats, force, coercion and subtle illegal practices, while illegally restrained, contrary to the spirit and requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment;
“(c) Petitioner was denied the statutory right to testify in open Court that during the period he was incarcerated in the Harris County jail and while indicted as a party to the commission of this offense, he was removed from said County Jail to a distant area and building occupied by the Texas Rangers, for the avowed purpose of procuring from him another ‘confession’; and
“(d) that the trial court permitted the introduction by the State against him, the issue of a collateral crime, not embraced in the indictment, over his objections.”
Substantially these same grounds of attack upon the conviction and sentence had been ruled adversely to the petitioner by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. While the federal district court found no “vital flaw” in the State proceedings it nonetheless chose “to air this matter fully” “in view of petitioner’s youth, the serious charges made by petitioner, and the crucial fact that the punishment is death.” After a full hearing and a thorough examination of petitioner’s trial in the Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas, the district court found that the petitioner’s constitutional rights have been in no way violated and denied his petition for habeas corpus. For a more detailed statement of the facts, we refer to the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, supra, and to the opinion- of the District Court reported as Johnson v. Ellis, 1961, 194 F.Supp. 258.
The findings of fact by the district court came to this Court buttressed by the “clearly erroneous” Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. Rushing v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 1959, 272 F.2d 633, 638. After careful consideration of the briefs and arguments of counsel, and a reading of the transcript of evidence, including the evidence in petitioner’s criminal trial, we find no valid criticism of the district court’s findings of fact. We agree with its conclusions of law, and think that this case is clearly distinguishable from Reck v. Pate, Warden, 1961, 367 U.S. 433, 81 S.Ct. 1541, 6 L.Ed.2d 948, unless the separate concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas in that case should be followed. For the reasons well stated in the excellent opinion of Judge Ingraham, the judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.

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