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:
CAIN v. BENSON.
No. 10572.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 22, 1947.
No appearances.
Before HICKS, SIMONS and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.
SIMONS, Circuit Judge.
The petitioner was tried and convicted of an offense defined by § 531 of the Michigan Penal Code, Comp.Laws Supp.1940, § 17115-531, Stat.Ann. 28.799. This section creates the crime of larceny with intent in its commission to maim, injure or wound any persons, to compel them to disclose or surrender the means of opening a bank, safe, vault or other depository of valuables. The maximum penalty for its commission is imprisonment in a state prison for life.
The information charged the petitioner with confining, maiming, injuring and wounding certain persons for the purpose of stealing from a state bank, substantially in the words of the statute. The journal entry of the verdict and sentence recites that the jury found the defendant guilty as charged. The court then sentenced him to be confined in the state prison for the rest of his natural life. The commitment addressed to the Sheriff, recites that the petitioner had been duly convicted of larceny. Under the Statutes of Michigan, 3 Compiled Laws 1915, § 15298, the penalty for larceny in its simpler form is imprisonment for not more than five years. The commitment, however, also recites that the verdict of conviction and the sentence imposed “more fully appears by a certified abstract from the minutes of said court of such conviction and sentence herewith delivered to you and accompanying this warrant.”
Upon the sole ground that the commitment describes the offense charged and upon which the petitioner was tried and convicted as larceny, without describing it in the aggravated form of § 356, Comp.Laws Supp. 19-40, §.17115-356, the petitioner, having served more than five years in several Michigan prisons, filed his petition in the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for a writ of habeas corpus to be released from custody. The writ was dismissed and a petition for a certificate of probable cause in support of an appeal was denied.
The petitioner subsequently filed in this ■court a petition designated variously as an appeal from the order of the district court, as an original petition for a certificate of probable cause, and as a motion to treat the proceedings as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He recites that his petition in the court below was dismissed for lack ■of jurisdiction, that his counsel failed to take a timely appeal and that he wishes the present petition, if not entertained as an .appeal, to be received as an original petition for writ of habeas corpus.
The petition must be denied. We may not consider the several papers filed as .an appeal out of time because no certificate of probable cause has been obtained from the district judge. We may not consider it as an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus because in such proceedings this court sits only as a reviewing court and not as a court of original jurisdiction.
Our reluctance to deny the petition •on technical statutory grounds is mitigated by the fact that it seems clearly to appear that the original petition was without merit and the court without jurisdiction to entertain it. The crime designated in the commitment is designated in the statute as larceny, albeit in an aggravated form, and it would seem to be clear from the history of the proceedings that the state court either considered that there was no error in the description of the crime in the commitment or considered that the error was purely clerical and cured by reference to the minutes of the proceedings and sentence in the trial court. Furthermore, it appears that the petitioner applied to the Circuit Court in Jackson County for a writ of habeas corpus in 1943, which was denied, that a petition to the Michigan Supreme Court was likewise denied, and the petitioner did not apply for relief in the United States Supreme Court from any order of the courts of Michigan. In this situation the law is clear that the district judge was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition under the authority of Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S.Ct .340, 79 L.Ed. 791, 98 A.L.R. 406; Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 116, 64 S.Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572; Dawsett v. Benson, 6 Cir., 156 F.2d 669, in the absence of exceptional circumstances discussed in the Hawk case, supra. Betts v. Brady, Warden, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595, relied upon by the petitioner, has no application.
The petition is denied.

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: 1