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:
Larry CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. Philip KAPLAN, Appellee.
No. 80-2050.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 1981.
Decided May 20, 1981.
Larry Chambers, pro se.
Philip E. Kaplan, John M. Bilheimer, Kaplan, Brewer & Bilheimer, P. A., Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before ROSS, Circuit Judge, GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
On October 9, 1980, Larry Chambers, an inmate of the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Corrections, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint which named Philip E. Kaplan as sole defendant. Kaplan is an attorney in private legal practice in Little Rock who was appointed by the federal district court (then Chief District Judge Henley) to represent a class of inmates in a civil prison conditions lawsuit brought against the Arkansas Department of Corrections, Finney v. Mabry, PB-69-C-24. Chambers’ complaint expresses dissatisfaction with Kaplan’s representation and details a variety of objectionable prison conditions which Kaplan allegedly failed to take any action upon. The complaint asked that the district court: (1) dismiss Kaplan and replace him with another attorney, and (2) award Chambers $50,000 in damages against defendant Kaplan.
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, citing Watson v. Moss, 619 F.2d 775, 776 (8th Cir. 1980), for the proposition that “there is no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in a civil case.”
In this appeal Kaplan contends that the district court’s dismissal of Chambers’ section 1983 suit was proper because (1) Kaplan took no actions under color of state law and (2) Chambers failed to allege specific actions by Kaplan which had the effect of violating Chambers’ constitutional rights.
Although this court recently held that an attorney in a county-or state-funded public defender’s office acts under color of state law in representing indigent defendants, it adhered to the “often-stated rule that a private attorney appointed by a state court to represent an indigent defendant does not act under color of state law.” Dodson v. Polk County, 628 F.2d 1104, 1106 n.2 (8th Cir. 1980), cert. granted sub. nom., - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1478, 67 L.Ed.2d 612 (1981) The “dispositive point” for Dodson’s holding that county or state public defenders act under color of state law was that the attorneys involved there were employees of the county, and the county, in turn, is merely a creature of the state. Id. at 1106.
Here, Kaplan is a private attorney who was appointed by a federal district court to represent Arkansas inmates against the Arkansas Department of Corrections. Kaplan concedes that state funds pay his fees, but this fact alone does not transform Kaplan’s actions taken on behalf of the inmates into state action. We are persuaded that defendant Kaplan did not act under color of state law. The dismissal of Chambers’ section 1983 action is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. The Honorable William R. Overton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
. The district court further ordered that the complaint be filed in Finney v. Mabry, PB-69C-24, a consolidated class action lawsuit which challenged prison conditions in the institutions within the Arkansas Department of Corrections. A formal consent decree was entered on October 5, 1978, and is reported at Finney v. Mabry, 458 F.Supp. 720 (E.D.Ark.1978).
. See also McCord v. Bailey, 636 F.2d 606, 613 (D.C.Cir.1980); Hall v. Quillen, 631 F.2d 1154 (4th Cir. 1980).

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: 0