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:
KUM CHOR CHEE, Appellant, v. Ramsey CLARK, Attorney General of the United States of America, Appellee.
No. 21241.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 19, 1967.
Nicholas W. Y. Char, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellant.
Herman T. F. Lum, U. S. Atty., James A. Ventura, Peter A. Donahoe, Asst. U. S. Attys., Honolulu, Hawaii, Fred M. Vinson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Criminal Division, Dept, of Justice, Maurice A. Roberts, George W. Masterson, Jr., Attys., Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before POPE, BROWNING and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In January 1965 appellant filed this action under section 503 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940 (8 U.S.C. § 903) for a judgment declaring that he is a national of the United States.
The complaint alleges that appellant, born in China, derived United States citizenship through his father, a native of the State of Hawaii. It alleges that appellant was denied admission into the United States by a Board of Special Inquiry in May 1937 on the ground that he was not a national of the United States. It alleges that the ruling of the Board of Special Inquiry was sustained by the Board of Immigration Appeals, a petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed and dismissed, and appellant was excluded from the United States in June 1937.
The district court dismissed the complaint. The court held that section 503 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940 was not “retroactive in effect.” The court therefore concluded that the complaint did not allege a cause of action under the 1940 Act because “plaintiff’s claim of a right or privilege as a National of the United States, and the denial thereof, took place, and was finally adjudicated prior to the enactment of the 1940 Act * * 252 F.Supp. 221, 223 (1966). See also 255 F.Supp. 301 (1966).
The Supreme Court considered the meaning of section 503 of the 1940 Act in Rusk v. Cort, 369 U.S. 367, 82 S.Ct. 787, 7 L.Ed.2d 809 (1962). The Court pointed out that “[t]he legislative history of § 503 indicates that Congress understood the provision for a declaratory judgment action to be merely a confirmation of existing law, or at most a clarification of' it.” 369 U.S. at 377, 82 S.Ct. at 793.
In the light of this understanding, it would be unreasonable to suppose that Congress intended- to cut off the existing remedy of those whose claims of citizenship had already been denied by limiting that remedy to causes of action accruing after the confirmatory legislation was enacted. The statute was intended to make judicial review of claims to citizenship more readily available, not to limit or destroy opportunities for such review which existed when the Act was adopted.
The district court also expressed the view that appellant’s suit was probably barred by the provision of section 405(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 note, that “Nothing containing in this Act * * * shall be construed to affect the validity of any * * * order of exclusion * * * which shall be valid at the time this Act shall take effect * * *.”
We disagree. The right to a declaratory judgment for the determination of citizenship confirmed by section 503 of the 1940 Act was available independently of any prior adverse administrative determination. Mah Ying Og v. McGrath, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 87, 187 F.2d 199 (D.C. Cir. 1950). As in this case, an order of exclusion might constitute the denial of “a right or privilege as a national” which formed the basis for the section 503 proceeding. Wong Kay Suey v. Brownell, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 26, 227 F.2d 41 (1955). And we must read section 405(a) of the 1952 Act in the light of the “well-established congressional policy not to strip aliens of advantages gained under prior laws.” United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 535, 75 S.Ct. 513, 518, 99 L.Ed. 615 (1955).
We wish to make it explicit that we have not considered the other grounds for dismissal of this suit submitted to the district court, but not determined by it. Thus we do not pass on the contentions that the suit is barred by laches, by res judicata, and by section 106(b) of the Act of 1952, added by the Act of September 26, 1961, P.L. 87-301, § 5(a), 75 Stat. 651, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(b).
Reversed and remanded for further consideration.
Under our decisions in Chew Wing Luk v. Dulles, 268 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1959); Yoichi Fujii v. Dulles, 259 F.2d 866 (9th Cir. 1958); Dulles v. Quan Yoke Fong, 237 F.2d 496 (9th Cir. 1956); Chin Chuck Ming v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 849 (9th Cir. 1955); and Junso Fujii v. Dulles, 224 F.2d 906 (9th Cir. 1955), it is clear that § 405(a) of the 1952 Act preserves an unUtigated right of action under § 503 of the 1940 Act. Other decisions holding this view include Dulles v. Richter, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 246 F.2d 709 (1957), and Wong Kay Suey v. Brownell, 97 U.S.AppD.C. 26, 227 F.2d 41 (1955).

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