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, Appellee, v. Howard BROWN, Appellant.
No. 11101.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 20, 1967.
Decided Aug. 1, 1967.
John M. Hollis, Norfolk, Va., (Court-appointed counsel) [Hugh L. Patterson and Willcox, Savage, Lawrence, Dickson & Spindle, Norfolk, Va., on the brief] for appellant.
James A. Oast, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., (C. V. Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on the brief) for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge:
Claiming that evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure was erroneously admitted at trial, Howard Brown appeals from his conviction by a jury for robbery of a federally insured bank.
The evidence, which on appeal from a conviction is to be taken in the light most favorable to the prosecution, unfolds the following sequence of events: On the morning of August 2,1966, Brown and an accomplice, preparatory to robbing the Grafton Branch of the First National Bank of Yorktown, secreted Brown’s 1960 Cadillac on a dirt approach road to the Grafton City Dump. Both the front and rear license plates were covered with newspaper to minimize the likelihood of later identification. The two men then walked the remaining mile to the bank and executed the crime, taking from the bank teller the keys to his car, which they then drove back to the waiting Cadillac. They abandoned the teller’s car and left in the Cadillac after removing the newspaper from the license plates.
A police alert was broadcast describing a black 1960 or 1961 Cadillac, bearing out-of-state license plates partially obscured by newspaper. Later in the day, Officer Pennington of the Newport News Police spotted the Cadillac moving on a street in Newport News. After observing the vehicle for several minutes, and noting that small pieces of newspaper were dangling from both the front and rear license plates, Pennington activated his siren and pulled the car over to the curb. He and a fellow officer questioned Brown and learned from him that, although he was then a New Jersey resident, he had lived in Virginia several years earlier and that his Virginia operator’s license had been revoked and not restored. Thereupon, Pennington placed Brown under arrest for driving with a revoked license. Apparently, no mention was then made of the bank robbery. The car was taken to the City garage, where the scraps of paper were removed from the car. At trial, they were shown to dovetail perfectly with fragments from sheets of a Newark Evening News found on the approach road to the city dump.
Brown’s court-appointed counsel made no pre-trial motion to suppress, raised no objection at trial, and offered no motion for acquittal on the ground that introduction of the pieces of newspaper violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. In this court, Brown’s appointed counsel, who is not the one who appeared for him at trial, requests that we notice as plain error affecting substantial rights, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b), the reception of the pieces of newspaper in evidence.
We need not decide whether in other circumstances Brown would or would not be barred from questioning on appeal the admissibility of the newspaper fragments not objected to in the District Court, for we conclude on the merits that he is entitled to no relief. He contends that probable cause did not exist to arrest him for driving under revocation, and therefore that the “search” which revealed the newspaper was not incident to a lawful arrest. We think his admissions to the policemen warranted the arrest. The defendant then argues, on the assumption of the existence of probable cause, that the warrantless “search” of the automobile was unreasonable, and therefore unconstitutional, relying upon Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964), and distinguishing Cooper v. State of California, 386 U.S. 58, 87 S.Ct. 788, 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1967).
The fatal flaw in this reasoning is that Brown has failed to establish a search of the car within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. As we said long ago in Smith v. United States, 2 F. 2d 715, 716 (4th Cir. 1924):
“A search implies some exploratory investigation. It is not a search to observe that which is open and patent, in either sunlight or artificial light.”
See also Ker v. State of California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 47 S.Ct. 746, 71 L.Ed. 1202 (1927); Petteway v. United States, 261 F.2d 53 (4th Cir. 1958). The incriminating shreds of newspaper were conspicuous to the naked eye. Officer Pennington testified that before stopping the car he had seen the newspaper dangling from both the front and rear license plates. It was no unreasonable intrusion into a protected zone of privacy to remove the fragments and compare them with the newspaper discovered near the city dump, where the teller’s car was found.
The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
. Because counsel failed to contest the admissibility of the newspaper fragments at any point during trial, the record is sketchy concerning the chain of events surrounding the discovery of the newspaper near the city dump. Likewise, the record was not developed in respect to the relation of this discovery to the police alert.

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