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:
In re Roderick D. REED, Appellant.
No. 89-1114.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 15, 1989.
Decided Nov. 27, 1989.
Isaac A. Scott, Jr., Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and HARPER, Senior District Judge.
The HONORABLE ROY W. HARPER, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
Roderick Reed filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. After filing, it became necessary for him to defend a complaint brought by a creditor who sought a ruling that the debt owed the creditor was not dischargea-ble in bankruptcy. Reed’s attorneys filed a fee application pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330 (1988) for services rendered in defending that action. The Bankruptcy Court, 95 B.R. 626, disallowed those fees since they benefited only the debtor, concluding that professional services performed for a debt- or in bankruptcy must benefit the estate in order to be recoverable from the estate. Reed’s attorneys appeal the order of the District Court affirming the Bankruptcy Court. We affirm.
There is a split of authority in the courts regarding the requirement that services rendered by counsel for the debtor benefit the estate before fees can be recovered. Counsel for Reed argue that the minority rule, which allows compensation regardless of whether the services benefit the estate rather than only the debtor, is the better rule. See, e.g., In re Delhi, 80 B.R. 1 (Bankr.D.Me.1987); In re Cleveland, 80 B.R. 204 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1987). We agree, however, with the District Court (and the Bankruptcy Court) that the few opinions adopting the minority rule are not persuasive. In our judgment, the overwhelming weight of authority propounds the better rule requiring benefit to the estate, see, e.g., In re Holden, 101 B.R. 573 (Bankr.N.D.Iowa 1989), and we find no error of law in the adoption by the courts below of that rule.
We find no merit in the argument of Reed’s attorneys that we should draw a distinction between fee applications in Chapter 7 cases and those in Chapter 11 cases. Section 330 applies to all bankruptcy cases; it makes no distinction between Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 cases. “In general, on an application for compensation from the estate, there is no difference between the [fee payment] standards to be applied in reorganization and liquidation cases.” In re Moore, 57 B.R. 270, 271 (Bankr.W.D.Okla.1986) (fees were awarded where amounts sought were limited to those services producing benefit to or rendered in connection with estate). Indeed, many of the cases adopting the majority rule that fees are not allowed for services that benefit the debtor but not the estate are Chapter 11 cases. E.g., In re lessee, 77 B.R. 59, 61 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1987); In re Chapel Gate Apts., 64 B.R. 569, 576 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1986); In re Spencer, 48 B.R. 168, 171 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1985).
We have reviewed the thorough and well-reasoned orders of the courts below and find no error of law in their conclusion that an attorney fee application in bankruptcy will be denied to the extent the services rendered were for the benefit of the debtor and did not benefit the estate. We therefore affirm the order of the District Court. See 8th Cir.R. 14.
. The Honorable James G. Mixon, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
. The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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: 2