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:
Robert L. PHINNEY, Appellant, v. BANK OF the SOUTHWEST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, HOUSTON, in its capacity as independent executor of the Estate of Dunbar Newell Chambers, deceased, Appellee.
No. 21035.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 5, 1964.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 4, 1964.
Harry Lee Hudspeth, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, David
O. Walter, Loring W. Post, Karl Schmeidler, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant. Ernest Morgan, U. S. Atty., of counsel.
Charles N. Avery, Jr., Austin, Tex., Leon Jaworski, C. W. Wellen, Charles W. Hall, Phillip L. Mann, Houston, Tex., for appellee. Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Houston, Tex., McKay & Avery, Austin, Tex., of counsel.
Before HUTCHESON, PRETTYMAN and JONES, Circuit Judges.
Senior Circuit Judge of the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting by designation.
JONES, Circuit Judge.
Dunbar Newell Chambers died on October 27, 1956. The Bank of the Southwest National Association, Houston, was appointed and qualified as executor, of his estate. The Internal Revenue Code required the filing of the Federal estate tax return on or before January 27, 1958. The appellant District Director, acting under statutory authority, granted a six months’ extension of the time for filing. The six months’ period expired July 27, 1958, and since this was a Sunday the final date on which the return might have been timely filed was July 28, 1958. On Friday, July 25, 1958, the estate tax return, with a remittance for the tax as computed on the return, was deposited in the mail in Houston, Texas, addressed to the appellant, District Director of Internal Revenue, at Austin, Texas. The envelope, containing the return and remittance, was received at the Austin post office early on the morning of Saturday, July 26, 1958. The mail addressed to the District Director received on this Saturday, including the return and remittance of the Chambers’ estate, was packed in bags and kept in a part of the post office separate from other mail. It was available to the District Director if he had desired to have it. The office of the District Director was closed on Saturday, July 26, 1958, as well as on Sunday, July 27, 1958. The week-end mail accumulation was delivered to the District Director’s office on the morning of Monday, July 28, 1958, and the return was marked, “Rec’d with Remittance July 28, 1958 Dist. Dir. Int. Rev. Austin, Mail Unit.”
Under the general provisions of the Internal Revenue Code an assessment of a tax must be made within three years after the filing of the return, unless a notice of deficiency is mailed by the District Director to the taxpayer within the three-year period. Another section of the Code provides that the running of the period of limitations for assessment or collection of estate taxes shall be suspended for the period of any extension of time for payment under Section 6161 (a) and other sections.
The Internal Revenue Service determined that additional estate taxes were payable and, on July 27, 1961, a notice of a tax deficiency in the amount of $943,300 was mailed to the Bank as executor by the District Director. Following an assessment, the executor paid the asserted tax and interest and after its claim for refund was rejected, brought suit in the district court. The motion of the executor for a summary judgment was granted. The court held that the estate tax return was so subject to the dominion and control of the District Director on Saturday, July 26, 1958, that it was constructively, if not actually, received by and filed with the District Director on that date, and that the deficiency notice, mailed on July 27, 1961, was sent one day after the expiration of the three-year limitation period and therefore was ineffectual. The District Director has urged that where an extension for filing the return had been granted, the date of the expiration of the extension rather than the actual earlier date of filing the return is the day from which the limitation period is measured. The district court did not have this question raised before it and hence did not consider it or refer to it in its findings and conclusions. It did say that the period of limitations was not suspended, tolled or extended.
A judgment for the taxpayer executor against the District Director for the amount of the claimed refund was entered, from which the District Director has appealed.
We find ourselves in reluctant disagreement with the conclusion of the district court that the District Director had such dominion and control over the mail addressed to him and held in the post office on July 26, 1958, as to constitute a filing of the return with the District Director. Filing, as the Supreme Court has said, is not complete until the document is delivered and received. United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 36 S.Ct. 508, 60 L.Ed. 897. The separation, in a post office, of mail addressed to a District Director from other mail is not delivery to the District Director. The filing of a paper takes place upon the delivery of it to the officer at his office. Milton v. United States, 5th Cir. 1939, 105 F.2d 253; Poynor v. Commissioner, 5th Cir. 1936, 81 F.2d 521. Mailing is not filing. Poynor v. Commissioner, supra. When the mails are utilized for the purpose of filing an instrument, the filing takes place upon delivery at the office of the official required to receive it. Wampler v. Snyder, 1933, 62 App.D.C. 215, 66 F.2d 195. Although in the course and process of delivery, the return in this case was not delivered, and hence not filed, on July 26, 1958, the limitation period did not commence running until the return reached the District Director’s office on July 28, 1958.
The different, and more liberal rules which are sometimes applied with respect to the time for filing notices of appeal in criminal eases should not control in situations such as we have here.
The District Director urges that we pass upon the question as to whether the limitation period began to run at the time of the filing of the return, or from the last day of the extended period for filing. Since we reverse the judgment on the ground upon which it was decided, we do not need to reach the other issue.
For further proceedings the judgment of the district court will be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
. 26 U.S.C.A. § 6075.
. .26 U.S.C.A. §§ 6081, 6161.
. 26 U.S.C.A. § 6501(a).
. 26 U.S.C.A. § 6503(a) (1).
. 26 U.S.C.A. § 6503(d).
. The opinion contains an extensive summary of the meaning and consequences of filing. Compare Central Paper Co. v. Commissioner, 6th Cir. 1952, 199 F.2d 902, which held a document filed when placed in a spot in the post office where mail was customarily picked up by the Tax Court. The opinion emphasizes that the post office had no further duty to perform in connection with the mail.
. Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139, 84 S.Ct. 1689, 12 L.Ed.2d 760 (1964); Reynolds v. United States, 5th Cir. 1961, 288 F.2d 78, cert. den. 368 U.S. 883, 82 S.Ct. 127, 7 L.Ed.2d 83, reh. den. 368 U.S. 917, 82 S.Ct 197, 7 L.Ed.2d 133. Cf. United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct; 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259; Berman v. United States, 378 U.S. -, 84 S.Ct. 1895, 12 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1964).
. Cf. Ward v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 5th Cir. 1959, 265 F.2d 75, reversed on other grounds, 362 U.S. 396, 80 S.Ct. 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 820.

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: 1