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:
Elery Erigen BROWN, Appellee, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Appellant.
No. 11354.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Submitted on Briefs Nov. 6,1967.
Decided Dec. 7, 1967.
Barefoot Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Morton Hollander and Jack H. Weiner, Attys., Dept, of Justice, and Milton J. Ferguson, U. S. Atty., on the brief for appellant.
Ned H. Ragland, Beckley, W. Va., on the brief for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, MARVIN JONES, Senior Judge, and BUTZNER, Circuit Judge.
Sitting by designation.
HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge:
We affirm the District Court’s allowance of an attorney’s fee in this Social Security case upon the assumption that it included, and was not entirely in addition to, a fee previously allowed by the Secretary and upon the lawyer’s disclaimer of any right to collect both.
After an administrative denial of a claim for disability benefits, a proceeding was brought in the District Court, which concluded in an acceptance of the Secretary’s findings and conclusions. An appeal was taken to this Court, and we directed a remand of the ease to the Secretary. Brown v. Celebrezze, 4 Cir., 367 F.2d 455. Meanwhile, upon an administrative suggestion, a second claim was filed, and a determination was made that the claimant had been disabled since March 31, 1964. Thereafter in further proceedings on the remand directed by this Court, there was a determination that the disability dated from 1960 and the payment of additional benefits was authorized.
Upon the finding that the disability began in 1964, accrued benefits aggregating $5,260.30 were paid. Out of that the District Court allowed a fee of $616, being twenty-five per cent of that portion of the benefits paid attributable to the primary claim. Benefits payable to dependents were excluded from the fee base.
Upon the later finding that disability dated from 1960, additional accrued benefits of $11,573.30 were paid, and the Secretary allowed the lawyer a fee of $1,487.90 for his services in the administrative proceedings. Thereafter the Court made a supplemental fee award of $2,877.07, and it is from that order that the Secretary has appealed.
We have no doubt of the Court’s power to award a reasonable fee to the lawyer for services rendered in this case. While the administrative suggestion of the filing of a second claim was made during the pendency of the case on appeal in this Court, the award entered upon it had a consequential relation to the judicial proceedings, while the later, larger award was the direct result of the remand directed by this Court. In every sense the conclusion of the judicial proceeding was favorable to the claimant.
In light of the relationship between the judicial proceedings and the successive administrative awards and the Secretary’s incapacity to allow any . compensation for services rendered in Court, we think the claimant was entitled to all benefits paid by reason of the favorable judgment of this Court within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 406(b) (1). Conner v. Gardner, 4 Cir., 381 F.2d 497.
The order of the District Court allowing a supplemental fee of $2,877.07 is not clear in its inclusiveness of the $1,487.90 allowed by the Secretary for services in the administrative proceedings. The lawyer’s representations in this Court and his disclaimer of any intention to collect both allowances, however, supplies the clarity the order previously lacked. The supplemental fee award of $1,389.17 ($2,877.07 — $1,487.-90) added to the initial allowance of $616, makes the total award for legal services' in the judicial proceedings $2,005.17. That is certainly not an unreasonable fee for extensive services rendered in the District Court and, on appeal, in this Court, and it is far below the statutory maximum of twenty-five per cent of the $16,833.60 paid in the aggregate as accrued benefits on the primary and dependent claims.
Construing the supplemental order as we do, as authorizing the payment of an additional fee of $2,877.07 for services in both the administrative and judicial proceedings and inclusive of the $1,487.-90 allowed by the Secretary, it is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Had the Secretary made no determination of an appropriate fee for the administrative services, the Court would not have been authorized to do so. Robinson v. Gardner, 4 Cir., 374 F.2d 949.

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: 1