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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hollis GRISSOM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 85-1236.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
March 24, 1987.
R. Raymond Twohig, Jr., of Deaton & Twohig, Albuquerque, N.M., for defendant-appellant.
William L. Lutz, U.S. Atty., and Mark D. Jarmie, Asst. U.S. Atty., Albuquerque, N.M., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
LOGAN, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.8(c) and 27.1.2. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant, Hollis Grissom, was convicted by a jury of embezzlement under 18 U.S.C. § 657. On appeal, he alleges that (1) applicable federal law, 12 C.F.R. § 563.-40, does not prohibit his conduct; (2) an instruction given by the district court negated his mistake of law defense; and (3) the court’s refusal to include subsection (b) of 12 C.F.R. § 563.40 in its instructions both deprived the jury of controlling federal law under which his conduct was lawful, and impaired his mistake of law defense.
In June 1983 Thomas Hartley, a principal of Eaton Investors, asked defendant if State Savings and Loan of Clovis, New Mexico (State Savings) would finance construction of a medical building in Denver, Colorado. At the time defendant was the president of State Savings and owned 72% of its stock. On July 5, 1983, defendant wrote that State Savings granted Hartley a six-month financing commitment for $450,-000. The loan commitment provided for a two percent origination fee, half of which was payable upon Hartley’s acceptance of State Savings’ commitment. Shortly thereafter Hartley sent an acceptance letter and check for $4500, representing the one percent fee due upon acceptance. This check was made out to defendant personally rather than to State Savings, apparently as a result of a secretarial error. Defendant applied the check to his personal use, endorsing the check at a local bank and applying a part of the proceeds to a personal loan with that bank and taking the rest in cash.
In November 1983, the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) placed State Savings in receivership. Hartley, upon learning that the FSLIC would not honor the loan commitment because it had no record that State Savings had received the one percent origination fee, asked defendant what he had done with the money. Defendant refused to discuss the matter. Defendant was thereafter indicted for embezzlement.
At trial defendant pressed two related defenses. Asserting that he had taken the $4500 as compensation for services and expenses he incurred in arranging the loan, he first contended that State Savings’ board of directors had granted him authority to set the compensation of all bank employees, including himself. Defendant also contended that he reasonably believed his conduct was legal based on N.M.Stat. Ann. § 58-10-41, which provides in part: “No director, officer or employee of an association shall receive any fee or other compensation of any kind in connection with procuring any loan for an association except for services actually rendered as provided in this section.” (emphasis added.) Defendant asserted that this statute authorized him to receive compensation for the time spent and costs incurred in negotiating the loan with Hartley.
State Savings, however, as a federally insured institution, is also subject to federal regulation, including the following prohibition of loan procurement fees:
“Restrictions on loan procurement fees, kickbacks and unearned fees.
(a) Loan procurement fees. No affiliated person of an insured institution may receive, either directly or indirectly, from such institution, any subsidiary thereof, or any other source any fee or other compensation of any kind in connection with the procurement of any loan from such institution or subsidiary thereof.”
12 C.F.R. § 563.40(a) (emphasis added).
The district court instructed the jury with respect to both the New Mexico statute and the federal regulation quoted above, and further instructed the jury that the “United States' Constitution provides that state laws are void to the extent they conflict with Federal laws.” R. Ill, 315. The court did not state whether the federal and state provisions did conflict; and it refused to include subsection (b) of 12 C.F.R. § 563.40 in the instructions. Subsection (b) provides:
“(b) Kickbacks and unearned fees. The prohibitions contained in sections 8(a) and 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (Pub.L. 93-533) [RESPA] shall apply to any fee, kickback, thing of value, and any portion, split or percentage of any charge, either directly or indirectly, given to or accepted by an insured institution or subsidiary or affiliated person thereof, in connection with any loan on real property made by an insured institution or subsidiary thereof, without regard to whether the loan is within the term ‘federally related mortgage loan’, as defined in section 3(1) of the Act.”
Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a) and (b), provide as follows:
“(a) No person shall give and no person shall accept any fee, kickback, or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise, that business incident to or a part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person.
(b) No person shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection with a transaction involving a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed.”
The court refused Grissom’s request to include section 8(b) of the RESPA statute in the instructions.
I
Defendant’s first argument on appeal is that his conduct did not violate federal law. He contends that subsection (b) of 12 C.F.R. § 563.40 “expressly limits its own provisions and those of [subsection (a) ] to enumerated provisions of the RESPA statute which expressly allows fees such as Mr. Grissom’s for services actually rendered.” Appellant’s brief at 10.
We disagree with this interpretation of the federal regulation at issue. Subsection (a) of § 563.40 clearly bars persons affiliated with federally insured institutions from receiving any fee — earned or unearned — in connection with the procurement of a loan. Defendant contends that he considers the money he took to have been compensation for procuring the loan. Subsection (b) of Section 563.40, on the other hand, extends additional prohibitions contained in RESPA to insured institutions and affiliated persons with respect to loans on real property. Subsections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA prohibit certain kickbacks, referral fees, and unearned commissions connected to charges for settlement services. See 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a) & (b); see also 12 U.S.C. § 2602(3) (defining “settlement services”). Subsection (b) of § 563.40 by its express terms incorporates only the prohibitions contained in RESPA, and provides no basis for defendant’s argument that subsection (b) was intended to limit the unqualified language of subsection (a). Subsection (a) squarely applies to defendant’s situation, and thus we reject his contention that his conduct did not violate 12 C.F.R. § 563.40.
II
Defendant next challenges the court’s instruction that state law is void to the extent it conflicts with the federal regulation. He contends that this amounted to a directed verdict of guilty, negating his mistake of law defense. We disagree. Jury instructions must be read as a whole. United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 674, 95 S.Ct. 1903, 1912, 44 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975). The court also instructed the jury that “evidence that the accused acted or failed to act because of ignorance of the law is to be considered by the jury in determining whether or not the accused acted or failed to act with specific intent,” R. Ill, 313, a necessary element of the offense. Informing the jury that conflicts must be resolved in favor of federal law did not vitiate the court’s instruction that defendant’s ignorance of the law could negate the intent necessary for the offense. The jury was still free to conclude that, even though federal regulations proscribed Grissom’s conduct, his ignorance of those regulations prevented him from acting willfully. The challenged instruction did not require a verdict of guilty.
Ill
Defendant finally contends that the court erred in refusing to include 12 C.F.R. § 563.40(b) in the instructions, because the omission not only deprived the jury of the controlling federal law under which his conduct was not prohibited, but also impaired his mistake of law defense. As discussed above, neither subsection (b) nor the RES-PA provisions it references legalize Grissom’s conduct. The district court therefore correctly refused to include them in the jury instructions as controlling law. The court also refused this instruction because it concluded that defendant had not relied on subsection (b). Defendant’s reliance was a condition of fact upon which the subsection’s relevancy depended. See Fed. R.Evid. 104(b). Absent reliance, the subsection was irrelevant to his mistake of law defense.
Although defendant testified that he had read the regulations, he stated that they had no bearing on his taking the fee. In addition, defendant’s attorney explicitly stated that defendant had not relied on subsection (b). Thus it was within the trial court’s discretion not to include subsection (b) in the instructions. See United States v. Linn, 438 F.2d 456, 460 (10th Cir.1971) (“Instructions should be confined to issues in the case and the facts developed by the evidence ...”).
AFFIRMED.
. An origination fee is a fee paid to lenders to cover the administrative costs of making a loan.

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