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:
Oscar WHITE, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 72-2560.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 29, 1972.
Thomas J. Gundlach (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Robert R. Granucei, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), William E. James, Edward P. O’Brien, Asst. Attys. Gen., Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Before BROWNING, ELY, and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
White appeals a dismissal of his action to remove Proposition 17, the California Death Penalty Initiative, from the state’s November ballot. That initiative on its face purports to reinstate all of California provisions for the imposition of the death penalty that were in effect on February 17, 1972. February 17th is the date the California Supreme Court declared all such provisions violative of the California Constitution. People v. Anderson, 6 Cal.3d 628, 100 Cal.Rptr. 152, 493 P.2d 880 (1972).
White’s basic claim is that Proposition 17 would violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied by the United States Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), and Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972). In our view, White lacks standing to assert this claim.
According to White, the mere possibility of Proposition 17’s passage, regardless of the election’s actual result, will cause him the requisite injury in fact. See, e. g., Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972); Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970). White is presently charged with the crime of first degree murder arising out of acts allegedly committed on or about J une 24,1972, approximately four months after the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Anderson, supra. Prior to Anderson, section 190 of the California Penal Code had authorized discretionary death sentencing in cases of first degree murder. White argues that the mere possibility of Proposition 17’s passage and subsequent interpretation to reinstate section 190’s death penalty and apply it retroactively to him is encouraging him and other criminal defendants similarly situated to waive various federal constitutional rights and even plead guilty now rather than risk the death penalty by stretching out their trials past the initiative’s probable effective date. Such encouragement, asserts White, is analogous to that held impermissible in United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968).
There is no substance to White’s fear that passage of Proposition 17 might subject him to the death penalty.
Proposition 17 does not apply to White’s case. By its own terms, it speaks only in the present tense: “All statutes in effect on February 17, 1972, requiring, authorizing, imposing, or relating to the death penalty are in full force and effect . . . ” (emphasis added). Even though retroactive application would arguably be insulated from attack on state constitutional grounds, there is no basis for asserting such application here.
If Proposition 17 were interpreted to apply to White’s alleged June 24th commission of first degree murder, the proposition would constitute a patent violation of article I, section 10, clause 1 of the United States Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . ex post facto Law . . ..” Since the California Supreme Court had on February 17th voided section 190 of the California Penal Code to the extent it authorized imposition of the death penalty for White’s alleged crime, the maximum penalty provided for that crime on the date of its alleged commission was life imprisonment. According to Justice Field, an ex post facto law is “one which imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed; or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed . . ..” Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277, 325-326, 18 L.Ed. 356 (1867) (emphasis added); see Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333, 377-378, 18 L.Ed. 366 (1867). Or, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, it is a law “which renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.” Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch.) 87, 137, 3 L.Ed. 162 (1810). There is simply no possibility that California could now sentence White to death consistently with the United States Constitution.
Finally, the representative of the Attorney General of the State of California has represented to this court, both orally and in writing, that it is the official position of the State of California that Proposition 17, if enacted, will not revive the death penalty with respect to violations of section 187 of the California Penal Code, under which White is charged; that to so apply it would contravene both the federal and state Constitutions; and, accordingly, that White may not be sentenced to death for the offense with which he is charged even if the initiative is enacted.
Since we find that White’s assertion of standing was frivolous, we need not reach the issue of whether a dismissal for want of standing could otherwise be made only by the three-judge district court requested by White. See Scott v. Hill, 449 F.2d 634, 635-637 (6th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 405 U.S. 928, 92 S.Ct. 979, 30 L.Ed.2d 801 (1972). The judgment of dismissal is accordingly affirmed. This court’s mandate shall issue forthwith, and no petition for rehearing will be entertained. See Rule 2, F.R.App.Proe.
So ordered.
. “The undersigned hereby propose that the Constitution of the State of California be amended by adding Section 27 to Article 1 thereof, permitting the death penalty as a form of punishment for criminal offenses, and petition the Secretary of State to submit this proposal to the electors of California for adoption. The text of the proposed measure is as follows:
“ ‘Section 27 is added to Article 1, to read:
“ ‘Sec. 27. All statutes of this state in effect on February 17, 1972, requiring, authorizing, imposing or relating to the death penalty are in full force and effect, subject to legislative amendment or repeal by statute, initiative, or referendum. The death penalty provided for under those statutes shall not be deemed to be, or to constitute, the infliction of cruel or unusual punishments within the meaning of Article 1, Section 6, nor shall such punishment for such offenses be deemed to contravene any other provision of this Constitution.’ ”
Brief for Appellant at 38 (App. a).
. Although California constitutional and statutory law (Cal.Const., art. I, § 16; Pen.Code, § 3) prohibits any enactment that increases criminal penalties for conduct occurring prior to the enactment’s effective date, the initiative provides that its reinstatement of the death penalty “shall not be deemed ... to contravene any other provision of this Constitution.” See note 1, supra.

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