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:
James DELANEY and Helen Delaney, t/a 290 Madison Corporation, 290 Madison Corporation, a New Jersey Corporation, and James Delaney and Helen Delaney v. CAPONE, Carmine E., James J. Brown, Raymond M. Codey, Anthony Della Salla, Ernest Monfiletto, Patricia Juliano, Benjamin F. Jones, Michael Marucci, Joel L. Shain, Quincy Lucarello, Past and Present Commissioners and Councilmembers of the City of Orange; Edward Ferrari, Beverly Savage, Marion Stewart, Ralph Perrella, Kenneth Condon, Frank M. Pannucci, Jr., Sean McCarthy, R. Frank Curry, Arnold Reiter, Stanley Robinson, Past and Present Members of the Rent Leveling Board of the City of Orange; Essex County Legal Services Corporation, and John Atlas, 290 Madison Corporation and James Delaney and Helen Delaney, Appellants in 80-1776, Edward Ferrari, Beverly Savage, Marion Stewart, Ralph Perrella, Kenneth Condon, Frank M. Pannucci, Jr., Sean McCarthy, R. Frank Curry, Arnold Reiter, Stanley Robinson, Past and Present Members of the Rent Leveling Board of the City of Orange, Appellants in 80-1777, Carmine E. Capone, James J. Brown, Raymond M. Codey, Anthony Della Salla, Ernest Monfiletto, Patricia Juliano, Benjamin F. Jones, Michael Marucci, Joel L. Shain, Quincy Lucarello, Past and Present Members of the City of Orange Board of Commissioners and Councilmembers, Appellants in 80-1778.
Nos. 80-1776 to 80-1778.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued Jan. 20, 1981.
Decided Feb. 27, 1981.
Anthony M. Mahoney (argued), and Dennis M. Mahoney, Mahoney & Mahoney, Westfield, N. J., for appellants in No. 80-1776.
Alfonso C. Viscione (argued), Orange, N. J., for appellants in No. 80-1777.
Francis J. Dooley (argued), Orange, N. J., for appellants in No. 80-1778.
Before GIBBONS, VAN DUSEN and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Alleging that unconstitutional actions of the defendant city officials caused the loss of an apartment building through foreclosure, the plaintiffs brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976). Their principal contention was that the income from the building was reduced, and the building itself eventually lost, through the actions of a rent leveling board created by a city ordinance. Inverse condemnation challenges to the constitutionality of the rent control regulation in the New Jersey state courts were unsuccessful, and the plaintiff’s building was finally sold in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding.
After a bench trial, the district court found that res judicata barred consideration of the federal claim, since it was indistinguishable from the prior state actions. The court further found that even if res judicata was not dispositive, the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the loss of the building was proximately caused by the regulatory acts of the city officials. Although rent control reduced the income from the property, the court found the plaintiffs had chosen to maintain a thin equity in the building and did not meet the mortgage payments. In addition, the court concluded that the proceedings before the board comported with due process and that there was adequate cause to support the board’s orders. Moreover, the court found that the defendant officials had established their claim to qualified immunity.
The plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment of the district court, and the defendants have cross-appealed the failure of the district court to award them costs as prevailing parties.
We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ briefs and considered the contentions they raised at oral argument. We conclude that the district court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, and we perceive no reversible error in its rulings of law. Accordingly, the judgment in favor of the defendants will be affirmed.
The district court directed that “each party to the suit is to bear its own costs,” but did not disclose its reasons for that action. Normally costs are allowed as a matter of course to the prevailing party, although the court may direct otherwise. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d). In ADM Corp. v. Speedmaster Packaging Corp., 525 F.2d 662, 664-65 (3d Cir. 1975), we said that when the district court determines that a prevailing party is not entitled to costs, there should be an explanation entered on the record. See also Samuel v. University of Pittsburgh, 538 F.2d 991 (3d Cir. 1976).
Although the decision to deny costs is largely a matter of discretion, an articulation of the basis for the order is necessary for purposes of appellate review. Of course, we express no view as to whether costs should be awarded in this case.
Accordingly, the case will be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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: 99