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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 92-8439
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 23, 1993.
Norbert J. Garney and Charles Louis Roberts (court appointed), El Paso, TX, for appellant.
Richard L. Durbin, Jr., and Glenn W. Mac-Taggart, Asst. U.S. Attys., and Ronald F. Ederer, U.S. Atty., San Antonio, TX, for appellee.
■Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Vasquez was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and conspiracy to import more than five kilograms of cocaine. Vasquez was sentenced to concurrent imprisonment terms of 300 months on each count to be followed by concurrent terms of five years supervised release.
Prior to trial, the Government filed a motion for a conflict-of-interest hearing. During the hearing, the Government requested that defense counsel, Robert Ramos, be disqualified from representing Vasquez because counsel was also representing a potential witness in the case, George Lore. The district court granted the motion to disqualify Ramos from representing Vasquez.
Vasquez argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in disqualifying Ramos because it relied on the unsubstantiated and contradicted representations of the Government. Vasquez also argues that a defendant can validly waive his right to be free from a conflict of interest.
“[W]hile the right to select and be represented by one’s preferred attorney is comprehended by the Sixth Amendment, the essential aim of the Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant rather than to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers.” Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S, 153, 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 1697, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988) (citation omitted). A district court faced with a possible conflict must ascertain whether the conflict warrants separate counsel. Id., 486 U.S. at 160, 108 S.Ct. at 1697. The district court may refuse to accept a defendant’s waiver of the conflict issue because it has “an independent interest in ensuring that criminal trials are conducted within the ethical standards of the profession and that legal proceedings appear fair to all who observe them.” Id.
Thus, a district court is “allowed substantial latitude in refusing waivers of conflicts of interest” not only if an actual conflict is demonstrated, but in cases where a potential for conflict exists which may result in an actual conflict as the trial progresses. Id. at 163, 108 S.Ct. at 1699. A “District Court must recognize a presumption in favor of petitioner’s counsel of choice, but that presumption may be overcome not only by a demonstration of actual conflict but by a showing of a serious potential for conflict.” Id. at 164, 108 S.Ct. at 1699. The district court’s determination of the conflict issue is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Reeves, 892 F.2d 1223, 1227 (5th Cir.1990).
The Government advised the district court that George Lore- had provided the prosecution with physical evidence and other information that might be useful in the case against Vasquez.
Ramos acknowledged that he was representing Lore in a criminal proceeding pending in New Mexico, which involved the structuring of financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements. Ramos stated that he had accompanied Lore to sessions with the United States Attorney regarding Lore’s knowledge of Vasquez’s activity in the drug case, but Ramos contended that the prosecutor indicated to him that Lore’s testimony would not be useful to the prosecution. Ramos stated that he did not believe that a conflict of interest existed because Lore’s testimony would be limited to the undisputed fact that Vasquez knew some of the co-defendants and had business dealings with them. Ramos also related that Lore and Vasquez had no problem with his joint representation of their interests.
In response to Ramos’s remarks, the prosecutor stated that he had met with Lore and Ramos that day and that Lore indicated that he would testify that Vasquez had used cocaine along with other defendants in the case. The prosecutor also advised the district court that Lore had provided him with information concerning the whereabouts of an eyewitness that could implicate Vasquez and with a letter explaining why incriminating business records of the co-defendants were found in Vasquez’s house. The prosecutor also argued that Ramos could not effectively cross-examine Lore without violating the attorney-client privilege. Ramos denied that Lore had stated that he observed Vasquez using cocaine and argued that the additional information that Lore offered would not incriminate Vasquez.
Although the value of Lore’s assistance to the prosecution was disputed, defense counsel did not contest the facts that counsel was representing Lore in another criminal proceeding and that Lore was cooperating with the Government in Vasquez’s criminal case. The Government’s contention that a conflict of interest would arise if Ramos was required to cross-examine Lore during the trial was a valid and significant concern. Because the Government demonstrated that there was a serious potential for a conflict of interest which could impair the effectiveness of counsel’s representation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying Vasquez’s counsel.
AFFIRMED.

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