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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny R. YOUNGBLOOD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 91-6092.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Nov. 25, 1991.
Johnny R. Youngblood, pro se.
Timothy D. Leonard, U.S. Atty., and Leslie M. Kaestner, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
TACHA, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Johnny Young-blood appeals an order of the district court denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Although Youngblood raises four separate issues on appeal, the ground for each contention is that 21 U.S.C. § 812, et seq., and 21 C.F.R. § 1308.22 specifically exclude methamphetamine from the schedules of controlled substances, and, therefore, he did not violate the Controlled Substances Act. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Youngblood, along with codefendant, Alan Raz, was charged with violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), involving the distribution of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), possession of a firearm during and relating to drug trafficking. Youngblood entered a plea of guilty to one count of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and one count of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He was sentenced to sixty months and twenty-seven months, respectively, with the sentences to run consecutively.
Youngblood asserts that methamphetamine is not a controlled substance and, therefore, should not be subject to the Controlled Substances Act. To arrive at this conclusion, Youngblood relies on 21 U.S.C. § 811(g)(1), which provides that
[t]he Attorney General shall by regulation exclude any non-narcotic substance from a schedule if such substance may, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, be lawfully sold over the counter without a prescription.
Appellant next asserts that both Rynal and Vicks Inhaler nose sprays contain methamphetamine isomers and, therefore, methamphetamine is sold over the counter and is exempt from the Controlled Substances Act.
In United States v. Roark, 924 F.2d 1426 (8th Cir.1991), the Eighth Circuit addressed precisely this issue and concluded that methamphetamine is “properly classified as a Schedule II controlled substance pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 1308.12(d).” Id. at 1428. We agree. The flaw in Youngblood’s contention is that the FDA did not approve methamphetamine for over-the-counter sale. Instead, the FDA approved the Ry-nal and Vicks inhalers, which contain a combination of ingredients, including a diluted isomer of methamphetamine.
Under 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12(d), methamphetamine or its isomers is a Schedule II controlled substance unless specially excepted. The FDA has granted a specific exception for the ingredients contained in the Rynal and Vicks inhalers. However, other uses or combinations of methamphet-amines or its isomers remain controlled substances under Schedule II until the FDA approves and authorizes a specific exception. Thus, we conclude that methamphetamine is a Schedule II controlled substance pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 1308.-12(d). See also United States v. Kendall, 887 F.2d 240 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Schrock, 855 F.2d 327 (6th Cir.1988).
Youngblood’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The district court order denying Youngblood’s motion is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

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