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:
INVESTMENT COMPANY INSTITUTE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert L. CLARKE, as Comptroller of the Currency; the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, an agency of the United States; and the United States of America, Defendants-Appellants, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; and the Bank of California, N.A., Defendants-Intervenors/Appellants.
Nos. 84-2622, 84-2623.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 12, 1985.
Decided June 30, 1986.
Norris, Circuit Judge, filed opinion concurring especially.
Coughenour, District Judge, sitting by designation, filed dissenting opinion.
Harvey L. Pitt, Henry A. Hubschman, David M. Miles, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shri-ver & Jacobson, Washington, D.C., David J. Romanski, Steinhart & Falconer, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, William F. Sullivan, San Francisco, Cal., for Wells Fargo Bank, et al.
Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard V. Fitzgerald, Chief Counsel, Eugene M. Katz, L. Robert Griffin, Washington, D.C., for Clarke, et al.
Before NORRIS and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and COUGHENOUR, District Judge.
Comptroller of the Currency Robert L. Clarke has been substituted for his predecessor C.T. Conover, pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 43(c)(1).
Honorable John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
The Comptroller of the Currency, Wells Fargo Bank, and the Bank of California appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Investment Company Institute. The district court ruled that the operation by the two banks of common funds consisting of commingled individual retirement accounts violated the Glass-Steagall Act, 48 Stat. 162, as amended, and that the Comptroller could not properly authorize the operation of such funds. See Investment Company Institute v. Conover, 593 F.Supp. 846 (N.D. Cal.1984).
Two circuit courts have ruled that the operation of such commingled funds does not violate Glass-Steagall and that the Comptroller could properly authorize their operation. See Investment Company Institute v. Conover, 790 F.2d 925 (D.C.Cir. 1986); Investment Company Institute v. Clarke, 789 F.2d 175 (2d Cir.1986) (per curiam). While the Second Circuit’s opinion consisted of only a summary affirmance of the district court, the District of Columbia Circuit engaged in an extensive analysis, applying the principle recently restated in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837,104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), that interpretations of statutes by the agency charged with administering them may not be overturned unless they are unreasonable. The court found that the Comptroller's interpretation of Glass-Steagall was not unreasonable and thus that his authorization of the commingling of individual retirement accounts was proper. See Investment Company Institute v. Conover, 790 F.2d at 931-38.
The Supreme Court has specifically held that “[t]he Comptroller of the Currency is charged with the enforcement of the banking laws to an extent that warrants” judicial deference to his interpretations of Glass-Steagall unless they are unreasonable. Investment Company Institute v. Camp, 401 U.S. 617, 626-27, 91 S.Ct. 1091, 1097, 28 L.Ed.2d 367 (1971). In Camp the Court reversed the Comptroller, saying that he had not offered a reasoned explanation for his conclusion. Such is not the case here, however. In his decisions authorizing Wells Fargo Bank and the Bank of California to operate their commingled funds, the Comptroller applied the mode of analysis that Camp held to be appropriate for determining whether Glass-Steagall has been violated.
The district court found the Comptroller’s decisions to be “somewhat coneluso-ry” and to “simply disagree with congressional determinations enumerated in Camp.” 593 F.Supp. at 856. It is easy to understand the district court’s view. The Comptroller’s analysis appears to be superficial, and in some respects to come perilously close to disregarding the spirit of Camp while purporting to adhere to its letter. It also comes perilously close to rejecting the division between commercial banking and investment banking that Congress sought to mandate in Glass-Stegall. Nevertheless, in the end, the Comptroller did apply, however inadequately, the Camp test.
In the case before us, the issue the Comptroller was required to decide essentially involved questions of expert judgment regarding the practical operation of the banking industry and the results that might be anticipated if particular business practices were instituted. Congress has delegated responsibility for such business judgments to the Comptroller. Whether he performs his task wisely or well is not for us to decide. Moreover, the practice the Comptroller approved is not prohibited by the plain words of the statute, and in most part, he has not relied on arguments that are inconsistent with or different from those set forth in his decision. Compare Securities Industry Association v. Board of Governors, 468 U.S. 137, 104 S.Ct. 2979, 82 L.Ed.2d 107 (1984). While the question is a close one, and certainly not free from doubt, we conclude ultimately, on balance, that we cannot say that the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Comptroller’s decisions are unreasonable.
For the above reasons, we join with the Second and District of Columbia Circuits and hold that Wells Fargo and the Bank of California may lawfully commingle individual retirement accounts in the manner authorized by the Comptroller. The district court’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED.
. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, Lojek v. Thomas, 716 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir.1983); because there are no contested issues of fact, we need decide only whether the district court correctly applied the substantive law, Lane v. Goren, 743 F.2d 1337, 1339 (9th Cir. 1984).
. We also agree with the District of Columbia Circuit that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and its legislative history are not relevant in the decision before us. See Investment Company v. Conover, 790 F.2d at 932-33. Like the District of Columbia Circuit, we base our decision entirely on the portion of the Comptroller’s ruling that relates directly to Glass-Steagall.

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