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:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. MASTER SLACK and/or Master Trousers Corp., et al., Respondents.
No. 77-1641.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
March 20, 1980.
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate General Counsel, N. L. R. B., Jay Shanklin, Mary Schuette, Washington, D. C., Raymond A. Jacobson, Director Region 26, N. L. R. B., Memphis, Tenn., for petitioner.
Yelverton Cowherd, W. Kirby Bowling, Bowling & Jackson, Memphis, Tenn., for respondents.
Before KENNEDY, MARTIN and JONES, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) petitions for enforcement of its decision and order, which found violations of Sections 8(a)(1), (3) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act and which granted injunctive and affirmative relief.
The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (ACWA) won a representation election at respondent Hardeman Garment Corporation (Hardeman), a clothing manufacturer in Bolivar, Tennessee. Hardeman is a subsidiary of respondent Master Slack and/or Master Trousers Corp., as are respondents Morehouse Garment Corp., Lauderdale Garment Corp., and Lobelville Garment Corp. All the alleged unfair labor practices occurred at Hardeman. After the election, Hardeman filed objections contesting its validity. The Regional Director investigated the objections and recommended denying them in total. Hardeman filed exceptions to the Regional Director’s report; however, the NLRB adopted the Regional Director’s report and certified ACWA. Hardeman’s motion to reopen the record in the representation proceeding and to revoke certification was denied. Thereafter Hardeman refused to bargain with ACWA and unilaterally changed some conditions of employment. By its refusal to bargain, Hardeman seeks to obtain judicial review of the validity of the election. Hardeman also challenges several NLRB procedures as violating due process.
Hardeman challenges the representation election on four grounds: 1) union-created atmosphere of fear and coercion; 2) material misrepresentations by a union representative; 3) unlawful union promise of a waiver of initiation fees; and 4) racial and sex discrimination by the union in its membership and officers. As to the first two grounds, we hold that the NLRB correctly ruled that Hardeman had not met its burden of proof. NLRB v. Bostik Division, USM Corp., 517 F.2d 971 (6th Cir. 1975). Though Hardeman raises a valid objection with respect to the union’s promise of a waiver of initiation fees, NLRB v. Savair Mfg. Co., 470 F.2d 305 (6th Cir. 1972), aff’d 414 U.S. 270, 94 S.Ct. 495, 38 L.Ed.2d 495 (1973), the NLRB refused to reopen the record of the representation proceedings in order to hear this objection. Because Hardeman was very delinquent in making this objection and because the law at least in this circuit on such a promise was clear at the time of the representation hearing, we hold that the NLRB did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the record. Finally, Hardeman completely failed to meet its burden of proof on racial and sex discrimination by the union. NLRB v. Sumter Plywood Corp., 535 F.2d 917 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. den., 429 U.S. 1092, 97 S.Ct. 1105, 51 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977).
We have fully considered Hardeman’s due process arguments and find them meritless. A hearing was not required on Hardeman’s exceptions to the Regional Director’s report on the election, because Hardeman did not raise substantial and material factual issues. NLRB v. Basic Wire Products, Inc., 516 F.2d 261 (6th Cir. 1975). The NLRB correctly refused at the unfair labor practice hearing to hear evidence of Hardeman’s objections to the election, because Hardeman did not offer any newly discovered evidence. NLRB v. Brush-Moore Newspapers, Inc., 413 F.2d 809 (6th Cir. 1969), cert. den., 396 U.S. 1002, 90 S.Ct. 555, 24 L.Ed.2d 495 (1970). Finally, Hardeman had no right to see the affidavits of the NLRB’s witnesses until after direct examination. NLRB v. Automotive Textile Products, 422 F.2d 1255 (6th Cir. 1970).
Hardeman contests the NLRB’s finding that it violated Section 8(aX3) by laying off the entire night shift in the pressing department three days before the election and by discharging eight employees within three months after the election through a new policy of strictly enforcing the rules on tardiness and absenteeism. Upon review of the entire record, we find that substantial evidence supports the NLRB’s decision and order on these violations.
Respondents appeal the NLRB’s joining of Master Slack, the parent corporation, and three other subsidiaries, all clothing manufacturers, as defendants for purposes of the back pay awards only. Such joinder is appropriate where the NLRB meets the “single enterprise” test, that is, shows common ownership and control, a centralized labor policy, common management, and interrelated operations of the companies. NLRB v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750 (6th Cir. 1965), cert. den., 382 U.S. 830, 86 S.Ct. 69, 15 L.Ed.2d 74 (1965). Substantial evidence justifies the NLRB’s findings and order of joinder.
Accordingly, the order of the NLRB is enforced.

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: 1