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:
Carmen JULIEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SARKES TARZIAN, INC. and Helene Lewis, as Administratrix of the Estate of Chalmer H. Lewis, Jr., Deceased, Defendants-Appelless.
No. 15039.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Oct. 21, 1965.
James J. Stewart, Terence L. Eads, Indianapolis, Ind., Russell H. Hart, Lafayette, Ind., for plaintiff-appellant.
Frederick J. Frosch, William M. Osborn, Bingham Summers & Spilman, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendants-appellees, Armstrong, Gause, Hudson & Kightlinger, Indianapolis, Ind., of counsel.
Before DUFFY, KNOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
DUFFY, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff brought this suit in the District Court to recover damages for personal injuries. Jurisdiction was based upon alleged diversity of citizenship. A trial was held before the Court upon the preliminary issue of jurisdiction and oral and documentary evidence was received. The trial court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court found that on May 22, 1963, the date when the instant suit was commenced, plaintiff was a domiciliary and citizen of the State of Indiana. As both defendants were citizens of Indiana, a judgment was entered dismissing the suit for want of diversity jurisdiction.
The pertinent and controlling legal principles may be briefly stated. Plaintiff’s suit was filed on May 22, 1963 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that she was a citizen of the State of Connecticut, and that both of the defendants were citizens ■of Indiana. Plaintiff had the burden of proof to prove these allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.
The existence of citizenship, in order to establish federal jurisdiction, is to be determined as of the time the suit is filed. Boesenberg v. Chicago Title and Trust Company, 7 Cir., 128 F.2d 245, 247, 141 A.L.R. 565; Russell v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, 8 Cir., 325 F.2d 996, 998.
Citizenship and domicile are synonymous for the purposes of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (1), which provides for federal jurisdiction by reason of diversity of citizenship. Janzen v. Goos, 8 Cir., 302 F.2d 421.
We set forth some of the facts established by the evidence which we hold amply support the District Court’s findings.
Plaintiff, who is single, was born and lived as a child and young adult, in Bristol, Connecticut. She attended the University of Connecticut, receiving a BS degree in physical therapy in June 1955. Thereafter, she attended New York University and obtained a Master’s degree in physical therapy. She registered at New York University as a Connecticut resident.
Plaintiff turned twenty-one in 1952 and registered to vote in Bristol as a Connecticut resident in both the 1952 and 1956 elections. She owned an automobile which was licensed in Connecticut and she had a Connecticut driver’s license.
In October 1958, plaintiff went to Indianapolis and took a position with Crossroads Rehabilitation Center. She lived at the Catholic Women’s Association where thirty-eight girls resided. The furnished rooms were similar to YWCA accommodations. During her entire period in Indianapolis, plaintiff lived at the same address, and worked at the same place.
On November 17, 1959, plaintiff filed an application for a license from the State of Indiana to practice physical therapy. In this application, plaintiff stated, under oath, that both her present and intended addresses were in Indianapolis. The Indiana license was issued to plaintiff in early 1960.
Plaintiff was continuously present in Indiana, except for vacations, from October 18, 1958 to August 19, 1961, the date of the accident. Thereafter, she was in the hospital at Lafayette, Indiana, until December 16, 1961 when she returned to Connecticut.
During the period plaintiff lived in Indianapolis, she opened a bank account there and transferred her church membership to a church in that city.
In 1960, plaintiff purchased an automobile and it was licensed in Indiana. Plaintiff registered to vote in Indiana, and did vote in one city and one national election. Plaintiff did not register to vote in Connecticut after the date of her accident.
Plaintiff filed federal income tax returns and paid federal income taxes for the years 1958, 1959 and 1960 at the Indianapolis office of Internal Revenue Service. Except for the tax return due in April 1962, plaintiff filed no federal tax returns in Connecticut until after April 1964.
Prior to the accident, plaintiff had terminated her employment by giving two weeks’ notice. She had made previous contact with Purdue and Marquette Universities concerning future schooling. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was on her way to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for an appointment concerning a job opening there. She had given her landlady notice that she would be leaving.
For almost four months, plaintiff was confined to a hospital in Lafayette, Indiana, due to injuries received in the automobile collision occurring on October 19, 1961. She then went to Bristol, Connecticut, to the home of her parents. Her mother had been staying with her in Lafayette during her period of hospitalization. After the accident, plaintiff lived in Bristol, Connecticut, except for a period when she stayed in Lowell, Massachusetts. Plaintiff returned to Lafayette for additional surgery in September 1962 and September 1963. On one of those occasions, she went over to the University of Illinois to inquire about future schooling. She was later admitted to the University of Illinois as a Connecticut resident, but was deferred because of a two-year waiting period.
While working in Indianapolis, plaintiff had become interested in and had inquired about graduate study at Purdue. University, Lafayette, Indiana. Plaintiff was acquainted with a Purdue professor with whom she had worked at the Rehabilitation Center.
In September 1962, plaintiff applied to the Purdue University Graduate School and was admitted as an Indiana resident. In her application, plaintiff stated her present address was 87 Tulip Street, Bristol, Connecticut, and that her permanent address was 25 North Twenty-second Street, Lafayette, Indiana. In answer to the question “In what state do you claim legal residence?” plaintiff answered — “Indiana” and added in parenthesis the words “I am presently in Connecticut while recovering from an auto accident.”
Plaintiff now says that her answer as to her “permanent” residence was incorrect; that she hoped by being classified as an Indiana resident by Purdue officials to avoid a waiting period for admission such as she had experienced at the University of Illinois. Plaintiff says she explained her status in this respect to Purdue officials who approved of her admission as an Indiana resident. Although accepted for admission, plaintiff was still physically unable to attend Purdue, and requested deferments on three occasions.
Plaintiff now says she considered herself an Indiana resident for school purposes only, and that on May 22, 1963, she considered herself a legal resident of Bristol, Connecticut. Her counsel argues that at the time her suit for damages was filed, she had no contacts with Indiana except for entertaining the hope to enter Purdue University to complete work for her doctorate degree in physical therapy.
However, in April 1964, plaintiff testified, under oath, in a deposition that she had plans for going back to Indiana for permanent residence. At the time of the trial, she did not recall such a statement and believed she made an error or misstatement.
Plaintiff also made the following answers in her September 20, 1963 deposition taken at Lafayette:
“Q. Since the collision have you indicated to anyone you intended to return to Indiana permanently?
“A. Yes. This is my home and this is where I plan to come back to school, so I am home.
“Q. You are home now?
“A. Home now.”
The determination of citizenship is a mixed question of law and fact, but mainly of fact. Janzen v. Goos, supra, p. 423 of 302 F.2d; Welsh v. American Surety Company of New York, 5 Cir., 186 F.2d 16, 18.
This Court will not set aside the trial court’s finding of want of jurisdiction unless it is clearly erroneous. Appelt v. Whitty, 7 Cir., 286 F.2d 135. Any questions of credibility were, of course, for the District Judge.
We hold that the findings of the District Court are fully supported by the evidence and the Court was correct in dismissing the action for want of diversity jurisdiction.
Affirmed.

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