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:
Raymond J. BUTLER, Petitioner, v. Allan L. ROBBINS, Warden, Maine State Prison, Respondent.
Misc. No. 421.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Nov. 18, 1970.
Paul F. Zendzian, Bangor, Me., for petitioner upon request and memorandum in support thereof.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, a Maine state convict, requests a certificate of probable cause to appeal from an order of the district court denying a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, et seq. Petitioner was convicted for the March 1968 armed robbery of a credit union. Immediately subsequent to the crime, the credit union’s manager, who had personally observed the robbery, identified petitioner’s photograph at the police station from among a bundle of unmarked mugshots of eleven individuals supplied by police. Upon request of the manager to see petitioner “in the flesh” to “supplement his identification”, the police orchestrated an informal encounter. At trial the manager identified petitioner as the robber and testified as to the two-step identification procedure. The jury’s verdict of guilty was affirmed on appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. State v. Butler, 256 A.2d 588 (Me.1969).
The federal district court denied petitioner’s request for habeas relief based on its conclusion that the second stage in-person identification encounter did not fall within the rule of Wade trilogy, supra, n. 1, because the identifying witness, and not the police, had requested the personal confrontation, thus avoiding the “risks of suggestion at which the rules of Wade, Gilbert and Stovall are directed. * * * ”, Butler v. Robbins, 316 F.Supp. 321, p. 323 (D.Me.1970).
We hesitate to accept as a rule of law the principle that a personal confrontation arranged by the police at the behest of a witness cannot reflect a violation of the rights of the suspect. We can imagine a situation involving a wavering witness and a highly suggestive in-person encounter arranged at his request which would clearly fall within the Wade rule. The fact that the initiating party is the witness and not the police may, however, in some cases mitigate against the suggestive hazards of the secondary confrontation. Cf. United States v. McNamara, 422 F.2d 499, 500 (1st Cir. 1970); United States v. DeLeo, 422 F.2d 487, 497 (1st Cir. 1970) (pre-Wade request by witness to see more pictures of the suspect). In the case at bar, however, we do not need to discuss the precise implications of such a factor.
In Gilbert the Supreme Court analyzed the in-court identification and the testimony about the possibly tainted encounter separately as analytically distinctive issue. Gilbert v. California, supra, 388 U.S. at 272-274, 87 S.Ct. 1951. The record in the case at bar demonstrates by “clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identifications were based upon observations of the suspect other than the lineup identification.” United States v. Wade, supra, 388 U.S. at 240, 87 S.Ct. at 1939. Furthermore, looking at the record as a whole, we can say that testimony admitted into evidence as to the possibly tainted encounter was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).
At the time of the crime in question, the manager directly observed the robber for three to five minutes at close quarters. He noted, in particular, the robber’s eyes and nose. Within minutes of the robbery, the manager of the credit union clearly and without hesitation identified petitioner as the robber from among the full range of photographs presented to him by police. The identification at that point was definite, certain and not procured by any suggestive police practice. Simmons v. United States, supra, n. 2, 390 U.S. at 384, 88 S.Ct. 967. The record here, unlike those in Wade, supra, 388 U.S. at 242, 87 S.Ct. 1926 and Gilbert, supra, 388 U.S. at 272, 87 S.Ct. 1951 does permit an informed judgment as to the independent origin of the witness’ identification. Cf. Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 309, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966). The manager’s request to view the petitioner in person was merely as a cautionary “supplement” to his initial independent identification.
The brief mention at trial as to the possibly tainted personal encounter was only an insignificant portion of the manager’s testimony. He related in detail the facts of the robbery itself and testified at length as to the procedures used in identifying petitioner from among the photographs presented to him at the police station. Considering the abundance of untainted direct evidence against the petitioner, we are “able to declare a belief that it was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt”, Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S. Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), to allow the possibly tainted evidence of the personal confrontation to come before the jury. Harrington v. California, supra.
The request for a certificate of probable cause is denied.
. This confrontation occurred subsequent to the decisions in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967), which were applied prospectively by Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967).
. The procedure employed by the police in this instance was commendable. The manager was handed a group of twelve photographs of eleven men of approximately the same age and facial features. The repeat photo was not of petitioner. The manager was told to examine the photos without turning them over to see the information noted on the reverse side. The petitioner’s photograph was without special prominence or suggestible markings. Such a police procedure complies with the suggestions of the Supreme Court in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 386, n. 6, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968).

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