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 appellants in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant 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. Leroy Frank HOLMEN, aka Robert Ray Ramsey, Appellant.
No. 76-1179.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued July 21, 1978.
Decided Nov. 13, 1978.
Patrick M. McSweeney, Richmond, Va., for appellant.
Susan S. Craven, Asst. U. S. Atty., Asheville, N. C. (Harold M. Edwards, U. S. Atty., Asheville, N. C., on brief), for appellee.
Before BUTZNER, RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After waiving a jury trial, the appellant was tried by the Court on a charge of transporting a motor vehicle between Memphis, Tennessee, and Asheville, North Carolina, knowing the same had been previously stolen and taken without the permission or consent of the true owner, the appellant’s employer at the time the vehicle was stolen, and converted by the appellant to his own use, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. The Court found him guilty and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
Appellant contends on appeal that his conviction should be reversed for the following reasons: that (1) he was proceeding pro se and was deprived of effective access to the Court or of an adequate opportunity to prepare his defense; that (2) he was denied due process and equal protection of the laws as a result of being deprived of access to a law library; that (3) the'Trial Court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request to withdraw his waiver of a jury trial; that (4) the United States Attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct; that (5) the Trial Court abused its discretion in disrupting appellant’s cross-examination of a witness; and that (6) the Trial Court abused its discretion and deprived appellant of effective assistance,' of counsel at a critical stage in the proceedings when it denied appellant’s request for Appointment of counsel after the Trial Court returned its verdict.
The record shows that the appellant was well aware of his rights and asserted them quite forcefully. He made numerous pretrial motions, which were heard promptly by the Court and argued expertly by tile appellant. One such motion was that he /be allowed access to a law library. He ,tvas told by the Court that he was entit)ed to “whatever law books are availablé” and that he [the Judge] understood/“they do have some law books there [in Asheville] in the jail.” In spite of his protestations concerning the use of a law library the record does not show that he ever availed himself of the use of any law books. Appellant’s constitutional rights in this respect were not, therefore, violated.
Waiver of jury trial was made after interrogation by the Court to satisfy itself that appellant was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waiving jury trial. The record is devoid of any evidence that the waiver was coerced by anyone. The motion to withdraw waiver of jury trial was made on the eve of trial and after witnesses, who lived at distant places, had been subpoenaed and it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to have stopped them. Under the circumstances of this ease, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his waiver of jury trial.
We find no merit in the contention of the appellant that the United States Attorney was guilty of misconduct or that the Trial Court abused its discretion in disrupting appellant’s cross-examination of a witness.
Accordingly the judgment of conviction of the appellant is affirmed.
After the Court had found appellant guilty the appellant moved to withdraw his waiver of .counsel and to have counsel appointed to assist him at this stage of the proceedings. The District Court denied the motion and, after receiving a pre-sentence report, sentenced the appellant. The Government concedes that it was error not to have appointed counsel for the appellant at the sentencing stage of the proceedings. Appellant’s sentence is vacated and the ease is remanded to the District Court so that appellant may be allowed to withdraw his waiver of counsel in order that he may be represented by counsel at his sentencing. See United States v. Burkley (4th Cir. 1975) 511 F.2d 47, 51.
Conviction affirmed; sentence vacated and remanded.
. Appellant was held the greater part of his confinement in the Buncombe County Jail at Asheville, North Carolina.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officialss"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0