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:
Barrett L. GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert H. FINCH, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19819.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 5, 1970.
Quentin J. Lukomski, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.
William D. Appier, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee; William D. Ruckelshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kathryn H. Baldwin, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., James H. Brickley, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on brief.
Before EDWARDS, McCREE and COMBS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the denial of disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Appellant’s claim was rejected administratively by a Hearing Examiner, by the Appeals Council, and by the Secretary. The District Court granted summary judgment and affirmed the decision of the Secretary, and the question before us is whether the Secretary’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. Social Security Act, § 205 (g), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Under the Act, the claimant must show that he is suffering from a medical disability which prevents him not only from performing his previous work, but also from obtaining any gainful employment. Here appellant presented evidence that he had not been employed since January, 1965, that he suffered shortness of breath when walking and climbing stairs, and pain when bending over. He also introduced written medical reports which tended to confirm the existence of these symptoms. Some of these reports diagnosed his condition as emphysema and suggested the possibility of lung cancer. Only one of the eight medical reports suggested that he was disabled from engaging in any kind of physical work.
There were substantial factual conflicts among the medical reports concerning the degree to which appellant’s vital functions were impaired. The Hearing Examiner, the Appeals Council, and the Secretary all held that appellant had not demonstrated disability to prevent him from obtaining any kind of employment. They cited evidence indicating “satisfactory functional breathing capacity”, although they conceded that he was probably medically unfit to return to the foundry in which he had worked until 1965, because of its highly polluted atmosphere.
In addition, a vocational expert who was familiar both with appellant’s medical evidence and with employment opportunities in the Detroit metropolitan area, testified that appellant was capable of obtaining employment and named several specific jobs and employers. The vocational expert carefully indicated the physical requirements for these jobs, and it is clear from the conclusions of the Hearing Examiner and the Appeals Council that they found from the evidence that appellant could physically perform the duties described.
In summary, then, we hold that there was substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s finding that appellant was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The burden was on appellant to convince the Secretary that he was disabled from engaging in his former employment. He satisfied this requirement, thus shifting to the Secretary the burden of going forward with evidence to demonstrate the existence of available employment compatible with appellant’s disability. The Secretary introduced evidence of several such jobs, and the burden of persuasion remained with claimant to demonstrate that he could not perform them. There was substantial evidence that he could.
Appellant also contends that hearsay medical evidence alone cannot support a denial of benefits, citing Cohen v. Perales, 412 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1969). On rehearing, the Fifth Circuit carefully limited this holding to the situation where timely objection was made to the introduction of medical reports and where live medical testimony was introduced in contradiction to that which is technically hearsay. 416 F.2d 1250 (5th Cir. 1969). We have not adopted the Perales rule in this Circuit, and we find it unnecessary to consider this issue because appellant did not object to the introduction of the medical reports and did not introduce contrary live testimony.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
. The doctor concluded : “In my opinion, it would be difficult for him to engage in any type of physical work, certainly not of the type he had performed in the past.”

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