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:
UNITED STATES ex rel. DOYLE v. DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION AT PORT OF NEW YORK. UNITED STATES ex rel. EISLER v. DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION AT PORT OF NEW YORK. UNITED STATES ex rel. WILLIAMSON v. DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION AT PORT OF NEW YORK. UNITED STATES ex rel. SMITH v. DISRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION AT PORT OF NEW YORK (two cases).
Nos. 209-211, 207, 208, Dockets 20953-20955, 20950, 20951
Circuit Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Aug. 3, 1948.
Isidore Englander and Ira Gollobin, both of New York City, for Charles A. Doyle, relator-appellant.
Carol King and Abraham Isserman, both of New. York City, for Gerhart Eisler, relator-appellant.
Carol King and David M. Freedman, both of New York City, for John Williamson, relator-appellant.
Samuel Rosenwein and Abraham Unger, both of New York City, of counsel, for Charles A. Doyle, Gerhart Eisler, and John Williamson, relator-appellants.
William L. Standard and Carol King, both of New York City (William L. Standard and Edward J. Malament, both of New York City, of counsel), for Ferdinand C. Smith, relator-appellant.
John F. X. McGohey, U. S. Atty., of New York City (David McKibbin and Harold J. Raby, Asst. U. S. Attys., and Robert A. Vielhaber, Atty., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, all of New York City, of counsel), for respondent-appellee.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.
The above named relators were arrested and held at Ellis Island for deportation proceedings. In each case the warrant charged as a ground for deportation that the alien was a member of and affiliated with an organization that advocates the overthrow by force and violence of the Government of the United States, and was accordingly deportable under the provisions of the Act of October 16, 1918, as amended, 8 U.S.C.A. § 137(g). Each alien was denied bail pending deportation proceedings by the Attorney General and thereupon sued out a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that he should be admitted to bail as a matter of right and that the action of the Attorney General in denying bail was arbitrary and unlawful. These writs were dismissed in the case of each relator by Judge Bondy who however admitted each to bail pending appeal. Prior to the application to Judge Bondy, the relator Smith had sued out a writ upon a similar theory which was dismissed by Judge Medina who refused to grant bail pending appeal on the grounds that the court had no power to admit the alien to bail and that assuming it had such power bail should be denied on a consideration of the merits. The dismissal of the writs by both judges was based upon a holding that the power to admit to bail rested solely within the Attorney General’s absolute discretion and in none of the cases was the question of an abuse of discretion considered by the court.
We have carefully examined the contentions presented in the briefs and arguments on behalf of these relators and have dealt fully with issues identical with those before us here in the case of United States ex rel. Potash v. District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, 2 Cir., 169 F.2d 747, the opinion in which is filed herewith. There is no need of further discussion of legal principles which are equally applicable to Potash and the above relators. The varying facts and particular circumstances of each case do not cause any different result on this appeal and should properly be left to the District Court in its determination of each case. For the reasons we have stated in the Potash opinion we hold that the bail fixed by Judge Bondy in these four cases was lawfully allowed.
The orders dismissing the writs of habeas corpus in the cases of the various relators are reversed and each proceeding is remanded to the District Court with instructions to proceed in accordance with the views set forth in our opinion in the Potash appeal, which we adopt as applicable in determining the principles involved in these appeals.
CLARK, Circuit Judge, concurring upon the same grounds as those stated by him in his opinion in U. S. ex rel. Potash v. District Director.

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