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:
William McBEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Archie WEAVER, Sheriff of Knox County, Tennessee, et al., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16254.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 1, 1966.
Ed R. Davies, Nashville, Tenn., and William E. Badgett, Knoxville, Tenn., for appellant.
Henry C. Foutch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Tenn., for appellee. David W. McMackin, Special Counsel, Nashville, Tenn., on brief, George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., and Reporter, Nashville, Tenn., of counsel.
Before EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge, and BROWN, District Judge.
Honorable Bailey Brown, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder in a trial in Knox County, Tennessee in 1954. In 1961, this court determined that such conviction was void because petitioner had been deprived of effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that he was forced to trial on the same day that his lawyer was employed. Mc-Bee v. Bomar, 296 F.2d 235 (6th Cir. 1961).
Petitioner was retried in 1962 (represented by the employed lawyer who had represented him at the first trial) and was convicted of murder in the second degree. At this trial, the testimony of two witnesses for the State, who had-testified at the first trial but who had since died, was read in evidence over the objection of petitioner’s lawyer. This conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee (McBee v. State, 213 Tenn. 15, 372 S.W.2d 173 (1963) ) and the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari. 377 U.S. 955, 84 S.Ct. 1633, 12 L.Ed.2d 499 (1964).
In 1964, petitioner filed another habeas corpus petition in the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, alleging that his Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated by the admission in evidence of the transcript of the testimony of the two witnesses who had testified at the first trial. The District Judge denied the petition without a hearing and petitioner has appealed.
Subsequent to the denial of the second petition for habeas corpus, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Pointer v. State of Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S. Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). In Pointer, the majority holding is that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation includes the right to a “complete ■ and adequate opportunity to cross-examine” and that this right is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In its opinion in the prior habeas corpus proceeding (296 F.2d 235), this court refers to actual prejudice to petitioner in the inability of his counsel to effectively cross-examine the witness Stewart, who was one of the witnesses whose testimony was read at the second trial. We conclude that this language in the opinion is dictum. We so conclude because it was not necessary to the decision of this court that petitioner had been unconstitutionally denied effective assistance of counsel and that therefore petitioner’s conviction was void.
In the instant case, as stated, the District Judge held no evidentiary hearing and did not have the benefit of the decision in Pointer. Whether an accused has had “complete and adequate opportunity to cross-examine” is a question of fact in the first instance. Under Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), issues of fact in habeas corpus proceedings must first be heard by District Judges and their findings are binding upon appellate courts unless “clearly erroneous.” Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P. On remand, the district Judge can hold a hearing on this issue of fact with the standards of Pointer in mind.
Reversed and remanded for further consideration in the light of Pointer v. State of Texas, supra.

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