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:
VIRGINIA MOTOR EXPRESS v. JIMENEZ.
No. 3764.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 17, 1935.
Decided April 3, 1935.
Gardner L. Boothe, of Alexandria, Va. (Walter Hoyle, of Charlotte, N. C., and Armistead L. Boothe, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
Albert V. Bryan, of Alexandria, Va. (Richard E. Shands, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and GLENN, District Judge.
GLENN, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment based on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000 found in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The appeal is taken from several rulings of the Trial Court and particularly from the refusal of the court to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant, motions for directed verdict being made both at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence and at the conclusion of all of the testimony. The court also refused-a motion for a new trial and set forth the reasons therefor at some length in an opinion reported in the record.
The undisputed evidence, fairly construed, may be stated as follows: Early on the morning of January 24, 1933, the plaintiff, Cristobal Jimenez, a Spanish waiter, with eight companions was going from New York to Miami, Fla. The party was traveling in two automobiles, one was driven by a man named Braguy and the second was driven by a man, Otis Plechot. The two cars on this morning, as was their custom, were traveling fairly close together. They had left Alexandria, Va., about 6 o’clock in the morning and were proceeding southward towards Richmond when a Ford automobile containing four negroes, two men and two women, approached from the south. The eastern track of the road at this point was under repair and so marked off by barriers and lanterns which, according to the undisputed testimony, were -burning at the time of the collision. This Ford car was going to New York and was referred to on trial and in argument as the New York car. The occupants of this car were evidently driving carelessly as they barely missed colliding with the Braguy car which was some little distance in front of the Plechot car in which- Jimenez was riding. After this the New York car came on and sideswiped the Plechot car. This “side-swiping” tore the baggage, which was strapped on the left side of the Plechot car, loose from its fastenings and scattered it over the road for a considerable distance. Furthermore, the force of the collision between the New York car and the Plechot car blew out a tire on the New York car. The occupants of this New York car proceeded northward for some little distance and pulled off to the right side of the road. This distance was variously estimated in 'the testimony, but it may be reasonably stated to have been about 100 feet. Braguy in the meantime had stopped his car on the southbound or west traffic lane and the Plechot car was also pulled over to the shoulder on the west side and stopped about 25 or 30 feet behind (i. e., north of) the Braguy car. At least five of the plaintiff’s party, including plaintiff himself, got out from their cars and went northward along the highway to the place where the New York car was parked for the purpose of questioning the occupants. Just about the time that the plaintiff and his companions reached the New York car a truck, belonging to the defendant, and headed south on the same highway, came over a hill 250 or 300 feet north of the point where the New York car was parked. The headlights on this truck were burning brightly and were plainly visible to any one looking in that direction. Several of the men in the plaintiff’s party, being somewhat excited as we might well expect, began waving and signaling to the truck to stop.
As to what happened after this there is a sharp conflict in the evidence as related by the eyewitnesses. The truck, however, according to the testimony of several of plaintiff’s witnesses, did not slacken its speed, but continued on its course finally striking Jimenez at a point just about opposite the paxdced New York car. Several of the plaintiff’s witnesses testified that the truck came on so rapidly that they were obliged to jump to one side or the other in order to escape injury. These witnesses estimated the speed at which the truck was traveling at the time it struck Jimenez as being from 35 to 40 miles per hour. The truck was confessedly a large van type, consisting of motor and trailer, and having a width of 7 feet 8 inches. There are several discrepancies between the testimony of some of the plaintiff’s witnesses, but in the trial of a case where the witnesses were standing at different places and were all somewhat excited at the time of the events testified to, it is not unnatural that small discrepancies should be found. Trial experience extending over some years teaches us that small differences in exact details in the accounts of events which have happened very rapidly frequently occur, although all of the witnesses may be honestly trying to tell the truth. Exact agreement in minute detail would be so rare that it might create doubt as to the bona fides of the testimony.
For the defendant, evidence was introduced tending to show that the driver of the truck reduced his speed upon seeing the unusual situation in the road and slowed down upon approaching the confusion. That the driver, however, resumed his southward course at increased speed after the road had been cleared of men, and that, while the truck was proceeding at its resumed speed, Jimenez ran suddenly from behind the Ford directly into the path of the truck. The assistant driver, Wright, testified that at the time of the collision he was off duty but was awake. He was lying in the “sleeper” when the truck came over the hill, the “sleeper” is built directly back of the driver’s seat and according to the testimony is so situate that one in the “sleeper” has a clear view of the road ahead. He testified that he saw the confusion in the road and all three of the parked cars. He further testified as to the actions of the driver upon approaching the scene and as to the use of the brakes on the truck, which appeared to have been in perfect condition. The driver had died before the trial so we do not have the benefit of his testimony. Other witnesses testified as to the condition of the road and the situation which they found when they came up shortly after the collision..
Much complaint was made on trial as to instructions given by the trial judge with reference to the doctrine of “last clear chance.” Error in this connection is urged on argument here. We are of the opinion that it was not necessary for the court below, under any reasonable view of the testimony, to charge the law with respect to the “last clear chance.” Any error in this respect, however, was error in favor of the defendant and does not justify the awarding of a new trial.
The excited group in the road and the baggage strewn about presented evidence which was sufficient to warn the truck driver that an unusual situation existed immediately in front of him. The road also was under repair and the lights and barriers were additional warnings of the need for careful approach. Due care for the rights and safety of those there on the highway demanded that he approach the scene with caution. There is substantial evidence, according to the testimony of several witnesses, that he did not do so. Under the conflict of evidence, it was clearly the duty of the trial judge to send the case to the jury. Garrison v. United States (C. C. A.) 62 F.(2d) 41. Likewise, the conflicting evidence as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff presented a jury question. To take the view of the evidence as testified to by several of the defendant’s witnesses, that the plaintiff, Jimenez, rushed from behind the Ford car and ran immediately in front of the truck as it picked up speed, is to remove any reason for the application of the law of “last clear chance.” It would have been too late then for the truck driver to have avoided striking the plaintiff, Jimenez. The rule for determining the applicability of the doctrine is well settled, and we simply refer to a few of the leading authorities: Inland & Sea-Board Coasting Company v. Tolson, 139 U. S. 551, 11 S. Ct. 653, 35 L. Ed. 270; Miller v. Canadian Northern Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 281 F. 664; Robbins v. Pennsylvania Co. (C. C. A.) 245 F. 435; Gilbert v. Erie Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 97 F. 747.
Of course, the general law, as laid down in the decisions of the, federal appellate courts, governs on the questions of negligence, contributory negligence, and the applicability of the doctrine of “last clear chance.” This whole matter has been so well discussed in a recent opinion by Judge Parker that it is useless to do more than cite the case of Hewlett v. Schadel (C. C. A.) 68 F.(2d) 502, 91 A. L. R. 743.
In out opinion the case was properly submitted to the jury, and, as no prejudicial error has been shown, the judgment below should be affirmed.
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