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:
COATES v. LAWRENCE, Superintendent and Warden of Georgia State Prison.
No. 10418.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 27, 1942.
Writ of Certiorari Denied Feb. 1,1943.
See 63 S.Ct. 532, 87 L.Ed.-.
James R. Venable and Paul Crutchfield, both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Ellis Arnall, of Atlanta, Ga., and Charles W. Walker, of Macon, Ga., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and Mc-CORD, Circuit Judges.
HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by Charles Coates from a judgment discharging a writ of habeas corpus' and remanding him to the custody of the warden of the Georgia State Prison. The question for decision is whether Coates’ constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities were violated upon his trial in the Superior Court of Catoosa County, Georgia, for the crime of murder.
The facts of record from which the issues arise are these: When his case was called for trial the accused had not employed counsel, and the court appointed two attorneys of high standing and wide experience to represent him. These attorneys were given ample opportunity to advise with their client and to prepare his defense, but Coates refused to confide in them on the ground that he had been “double-crossed” theretofore by lawyers whom he did not know. When the case went to trial one of the appointed attorneys was unable to be present, but the father of the remaining counsel, a qualified attorney, assisted his son throughout the trial, and was present at every stage of the proceedings, although his son was not present when the verdict was returned and sentence imposed.
During the course of the trial the presiding judge was advised that one of the jurors was strongly prejudiced due to an animosity he bore against the decedent for whose homicide Coates was being tried. Thereupon this juror was excused in the presence of the defendant and his attorney, without objection, and the trial proceeded before the remaining eleven jurors. The Georgia authorities were aware that, on the occasion of a previous arrest of Coates, an organized group of his confederates made an attempt to free him from custody. For this reason Coates’ movements while in custody were cloaked in secrecy, devious routes were used, and a large group of highway patrolmen were present throughout the trial.
Coates contends that he was denied due process of law and the right to a trial by jury, in that he was not afforded counsel, in the constitutional sense, for his defense, and in that he was not tried by a panel of twelve jurors. These contentions were made in the court below, and were exhaustively considered and disposed of in a very able opinion that, in our judgment, correctly states the law of the case. It would serve no useful purpose for us to reiterate what was there said. For the reasons therein stated, the judgment appealed from is
Affirmed.

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: 1