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:
TURNER v. UNITED STATES.
No. 1055.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Nov. 21, 1934.
Frank Hickman, of Tulsa, Okl. (Irvine E. Ungerman, of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
W. F. Rampendahl, U. S. Atty., of Muskogee, Okl. (C. L. McArthur, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Muskogee, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.
Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge.
LEWIS, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was indicted, convicted and sentenced for possessing intoxicating liquor on September 29, 1933, at a certain point in Muskogee, Oklahoma, said place being in what was formerly the Indian country. Act of June 30, 1919 (25 USCA § 244).
We notice that said section was repealed March 5, 1934. 48 Stat. 396. The repeal of that section, however, does not extinguish penalties or liabilities theretofore incurred. Rev. St. § 13 (1 USCA § 29).
Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that it was procured by certain officers of the United States by means of an illegal and unlawful search of appellant’s person and effects without a search warrant therefor. There was no search of his person. His automobile was searched. The court overruled said motion, and the sole question considered here is the correctness of that ruling.
Two federal prohibition investigators were witnesses. The evidence was that appellant was known as a liquor dealer who had served a term in the penitentiary for conspiracy to violate the liquor laws. About September 1, 1933, the witnesses were informed that appellant was back in the alcohol and bonded whiskey business. His movements were watched. On September 25, 1933, the witnesses received word from police officers in Tulsa that appellant was going to New Orleans for a load of liquor. They were informed he had left Tulsa, the kind of ear he was driving and its license number. They found out he was not at his home in Tulsa. On information the officers anticipated his return by Muskogee and they watched the highway. Shortly after noon on September 29, 1933, they saw appellant on the highway approaching from the south. He entered Muskogee, and at 24th Street and Okmulgee Avenue he changed his course and speeded up his ear. The officers followed and stopped him. When they came to his ear he said: “There is no use looking. It is full” — or something to that effect. A search of the car without protest or objection disclosed a-quantity of whiskey, wine and alcohol, also a revolver carried in the pocket of the ear. Later appellant told the1 officers he brought the liquor from New Orleans.
Under the facts the search was not unlawful and illegal, and no constitutional right of appellant was violated. See Husty v. United States, 282 U. S. 694, 51 S. Ct. 240, 75 L. Ed. 629, 74 A. L. R. 1407, Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790, and Underhill v. United States (C. C. A. 10) 47 F.(2d) 891.
Affirmed.

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