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:
Ruben DARIO SANCHEZ, Petitioner, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent, Appellee. Isaac ROBINSON, Petitioner, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent, Appellee. Harold A. RUSSELL, Petitioner, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent, Appellee.
Nos. 6376, 6340, 6379.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Heard Jan. 4, 1965.
Decided Feb. 10, 1965.
No. 6376:
Donald E. Paulson, of Brown, Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer, Boston, Mass., by appointment of the Court, on brief for appellant.
Francisco A. Gil, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Gilberto Gierbolini, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief for appellee.
No. 6340:
Anthony A. Giannini, Providence. R. I., for appellant.
William J. Gearon, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Raymond J. Pettine, U. S. Atty., was on brief, for appellee.
No. 6379:
Donald E. Paulson, Boston, Mass., by appointment of the Court, with whom Brown, Rudniek, Freed & Gesmer, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellant.
William J. Koen, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U. S. Atty., was on brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, and SWEENEY and WYZANSKI, District Judges.
ALDRICH, Chief Judge.
These appeals from denials of three petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, coming from three districts, seek to raise one ultimate question as to the sufficiency of the indictments, and may be disposed of in one opinion. We note, without more, that in two cases there are subsidiary questions which might well be determinative against the individual petitioners, but we prefer to reach the ultimate issue. This is whether an indictment charging unlawful transfer of a narcotic or drug without a written order, 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) or § 4742(a), is fatally defective if it fails to give the name of the transferee.
Petitioners rely upon Lauer v. United States, 7 Cir., 1963, 320 F.2d 187. In that case, arising under section 4705 (a), the court held that although the identity of the transferee was “not an element of the offense,” his name was nonetheless an essential part of the indictment because it was “central” to the prosecution. We gather from the opinion that the court had two considerations-in mind: that the name of the trans-
feree was needed in order to prepare a defense, and to show, in case of a subsequent prosecution, the identity of the offense. Except for Lauer we know of no case which requires an indictment to supply with full particularity all that might be needed with respect to either of these matters. The test of an indictment is whether it sufficiently identifies, the offense, not whether it might have-been more complete. United States v. Debrow, 1953, 346 U.S. 374, 74 S.Ct. 113, 98 L.Ed. 92. Alternatively, from the standpoint of double jeopardy, resort may be made to parol evidence. See Bartell v. United States, 1913, 227 U.S. 427, 433, 33 S.Ct. 383, 57 L.Ed. 583.
In Russell v. United States, 1962, 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240, on which the court in Lauer placed substantial reliance, the Supreme Court pointed out, at p. 766, at p. 1048 of 82 S.Ct. that the indictment was so “cryptic” that it would have permitted a “conviction to rest on one point and the af-firmance * * * on another.” It also-noted, at pp. 768-769, 82 S.Ct. 1038,!” that it could have permitted proof of an act that was not criminal at all. Neither situation prevails in the cases at bar. Each indictment stated all the elements of the offense and gave the date, the city where the transaction occurred, and either the weight, in case of heroin, or the number of cigarettes, in case of marihuana. - We align ourselves with those circuits which have declined to follow United States v. Lauer. United States. v. Dickerson, 6 Cir., 1964, 337 F.2d 343; Adams v. United States, 8 Cir., 1964, 333 F.2d 766, cert. den. 1/18/65; Clay v. United States, 10 Cir., 1963, 326 F.2d 196, cert. den. 377 U.S. 1000, 84 S.Ct. 1930, 12 L.Ed.2d 1050.
In each case judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court.
. Robinson, petitioner in No. 6340, received a concurrent sentence on a count ■which he does not claim to be defective in itself. He seeks to extricate himself from this by claiming that the presence of the allegedly defective count prejudiced the jury. Russell, petitioner in No. 6379, pleaded guilty to two other counts, and received concurrent sentences. To avoid the consequence of this he argues that his guilty pleas were induced by verdicts improperly allowed to stand on the defective counts.
. “§ 4705(a) General requirement. — It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, barter, exchange, or give away narcotic-drugs except in pursuance of a written order of the person to whom such article is sold, bartered, exchanged, or given, on a form to be issued in blank for that purpose by the Secretary or his delegate.” Section 4742(a) is materially the same, except that it relates to marihuana.

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