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:
JOHN WALKER & SONS, Limited v. TAMPA CIGAR CO., Inc.
No. 13837.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 23, 1952.
Harry B. Terrell, Tampa, Fla., Ellis W. Leavenworth, New York City, for appellant.
E. O. Palermo, Tampa, Fla., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and BORAH, and STRUM, Circuit Judges.
BORAH, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant, as the registered owner of two trademarks for a blend of straight Scotch whiskies, brought this suit for trademark infringement and unfair trade practices, praying that the court enjoin the defendant from using the name of Johnnie Walker upon or in connection with the sale of cigars and for an accounting of profits, damages, costs, and destruction of infringing labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, advertisements, etc., in the possession of the defendant.
In response to the complaint the defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The cause came on for hearing upon the motion to dismiss and after .hearing argument of counsel the court entered its order granting the motion without leave to amend. To reverse that order, this appeal is prosecuted.
Briefly stated, the complaint alleges that plaintiff, the registered owner of the trademarks Johnnie Walker and a picture of Johnnie Walker, is a British corporation which manufactures and sells a blend of straight Scotch whiskies. For many years it has shipped whiskey to the United States, where it has been extensively advertised and sold throughout the country under the name and picture of Johnnie Walker. In consequence, Johnnie Walker Scotch Whiskey has been known, recognized, and identified by these two trademarks and a valuable good will attaches to each of them. The defendant, a Florida corporation, manufactures and sells cigars. Long after the dates of the first use of plaintiff’s trademarks in the United States, the defendant started using the name Johnnie Walker on its cigars and, in association with the name, has been using a picture of a man wearing a high hat and holding in his hand a monocle, which is but a colorable imitation of the head and shoulders of the plaintiff’s picture of Johnnie Walker. The defendant’s use of the name Johnnie Walker has been without the plaintiff’s consent and although the plaintiff has demanded that the defendant discontinue such use, it has not done so. The complaint charges that the use of the name is likely to cause confusion, or mistake, or to deceive purchasers as to the origin of defendant’s cigars, and is likely to create the erroneous impression that defendant’s cigars originate with plaintiff, or are endorsed by the plaintiff; that the defendant has acted with full knowledge of the good will attaching to the plaintiff’s trademarks and with the intention and for the purpose of trading on such good will and thereby reaping the benefit and advantage thereof; and that by its acts the defendant is infringing plaintiff’s trademark Johnnie Walker and is unfairly competing with the plaintiff.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides that a pleading shall set forth a short, plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and that each averment in a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct. Absent from this rule is the old requirement of common law and code pleading that the pleader set forth “facts” constituting a cause of action. It is also elementary that a complaint is not subject to dismissal unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff cannot possibly be entitled to relief under any set of facts which could be proved in support of its allegations. Even then, a court ordinarily should not dismiss the complaint except after affording every opportunity to the plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief might be granted.
This court and others have frequently laid down the rule, that in considering a motion to dismiss the allegations of the complaint must be viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all facts well pleaded must be admitted and accepted as true. Cromelin v. United States, 5 Cir., 177 F.2d 275; Hilliard v. Brown, 5 Cir., 170 F.2d 397; Rose v. Rose, 5 Cir., 162 F.2d 587; Knox v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation, 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 973; Mitchell v. Wright, 5 Cir., 154 F.2d 924.
In the light of these principles, we think it clear that the court below erred in dismissing the complaint. We are in no doubt that the complaint states a claim upon which relief could be granted. The argument that the public is not apt to believe that Johnnie Walker whiskey and Johnnie Walker cigars have a common source of origin and that it has not taken the trademark Johnnie Walker with the intention of trading on the good will of the plaintiff’s trademark, overlooks the point that the motion to dismiss accepts as true all facts well pleaded and, indeed, exemplifies the necessity for a trial in this case. Certain it is this suit for trademark infringement may not be dismissed on motion where there is presented a factual issue as to whether defendant’s use of the name Johnnie Walker is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers as to the source of origin of such goods.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to overrule the motion to dismiss and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

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