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:
William C. HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Luther THOMAS, Warden, Kentucky State Penitentiary, et al., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15889.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 23, 1965.
William C. Harris, in pro. per.
Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., Martin Glazer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Ky., for appellee.
Before MILLER, CECIL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before the Court on appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, denying a writ of habeas corpus to William C. Harris, petitioner-appellant, herein. The petitioner was tried before a jury and convicted on an indictment charging armed robbery at the January and February 1956 term of the Marion Circuit Court, Lebanon, Marion County, Kentucky. He was sentenced for life to the Kentucky State Penitentiary, at Eddyville, where he is now confined.
The petitioner contends that the court was without jurisdiction to try his case because the trial judge appointed the Lebanon, Kentucky, City Attorney to represent him. His reasoning is that his counsel by virtue of his position had conflicting interests, was hostile to his cause and could not have been effective in assistance. This alleged conflict of interests is the sole basis of petitioner’s claim that his constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States have been violated. In support of this claim, he cites Berry v. Gray, D.C., 155 F.Supp. 494. The facts of this case are readily distinguishable from the petitioner’s situation. There the attorney had been elected county attorney and it was his duty to assist the Commonwealth’s Attorney to prosecute criminal offenses. He had issued the warrant for Berry’s arrest and conducted the examination of witnesses before the Grand Jury.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the Lyon Circuit Court of Lyon County was denied on May 8, 1963. On June 21, 1963, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Lyon Circuit Court. The court said in its opinion:
“A city attorney is not charged with any of the duties before a grand jury which are imposed by law upon the county attorney, and is in no sense disqualified ex officio to defend an accused at a trial in the circuit court.”
The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari on January 6, 1964. 375 U.S. 976, 84 S.Ct. 493, 11 L.Ed.2d 421.
There are no facts alleged in the petition which would tend to show that counsel was ineffective or that he did not adequately and impartially represent the petitioner. See O’Malley v. United States, 6 Cir., 285 F.2d 733, and Scott v. United States, 6 Cir., 334 F.2d 72.
Lebanon, Kentucky, is a city of the fourth class. Section 69.560 of Kentucky Revised Statutes provides that among the duties of a city attorney of such a city,
“He shall prosecute all pleas of the Commonwealth and all warrants or proceedings instituted for violation of the ordinances or municipal regulations of the city in the police court, * *
There is no claim that petitioner’s case ever came in any way within the scope of the city attorney’s duties in the police court. No cases have been cited to us in support of the claim that the city attorney was disqualified ex officio to defend the petitioner in the circuit court. We agree with the Kentucky Court of Appeals and conclude that the city attorney was not per se disqualified to represent the petitioner by reason of his office.
Specifically, the only neglect of duty charged to counsel is that he failed to introduce witnesses and did not advise petitioner of the process for obtaining out of state witnesses. We said in O’Malley v. United States, supra,
“In the opinion of trial counsel it may be advantageous not to cross-examine a certain witness, or not to use a witness who, although helpful to the defendant in certain respects, could be made a harmful witness on cross-examination. The testimony of prospective witnesses relied upon by a defendant may prove to be overvalued by the defendant and ineffective when fully developed and analyzed by defense counsel in his pretrial preparation.” 285 F.2d at 734.
The witnesses to whom the petitioner refei’s are not named and there are no allegations of facts about which they would testify, nor in what manner they would have been pertinent to petitioner’s case.
“Conclusions, not substantiated by allegations of fact with some probability of verity, are not sufficient to warrant a hearing.” O’Malley v. United States, 6 Cir., 285 F.2d 733, 735, and cases cited.
We find no error on the part of trial judge in dismissing the petition and the judgment of the District Court is therefore 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: 99