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:
ESTATE of Dominick F. PACHELLA, Deceased, and Petronila R. Pachella, Administratrix and Surviving Spouse of Dominick F. Pachella, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Herbert A. CHARY and Ann Chary, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
Nos. 14109, 14069.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Dec. 11, 1962.
Decided Dec. 28, 1962.
Christian Bollermann, Hackensack, -N. J. (Alfred W. Kiefer, Hackensack, N. J., on the brief), for petitioners Estate of Dominick F. Pachella, deceased, and Petronila R. Pachella, administratrix and surviving spouse of Dominick F. Pa-chella.
Herbert A. Chary, Hackensack, N. J., for petitioners Herbert A. Chary and Ann Chary.
Alec. A. Pandaleon, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (John B. Jones, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, William Friedlander, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before KALODNER and FORMAN, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBERG, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the business bad debt deductions claimed by the law partnership of Pachella and Chary on their law partnership’s income tax returns for the years 1950 to 1955, inclusive, “for monies paid as guarantors of corporate indebtedness of Town and Country Cleaners”, on the Commissioner’s theory that Pachella and Chary were merely accommodation makers on the notes and that the subsequent payment of the notes by the law partnership merely gave rise to non-business debts which did not become totally worthless until 1955 and then became deductible only under Section 23 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. The Tax Court rejected the taxpayers’ contention that they were not accommodation makers on the notes but were primarily liable thereon and that accordingly the payments made by the law partnership were, in the alternative, deductible either under Section 23(e) (1) — losses, by individual, incurred in a trade or business — , Section 23(e) (2) — losses incurred in any transaction entered into for profit though not connected with a trade or business — ■, Section 23(a) (1) (A)— trade or business expenses — , or Section 23(a) (2) — nontrade or nonbusiness expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of income or for the management, conservation or maintenance of property held for the production of income — , of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. The Tax Court further held that when the law partnership paid the notes as guarantor it obtained a claim against the corporation and that the nonpayment of this claim by the corporation gave rise to a non-business debt which was deductible under Section 23 (k) of the 1939 Code in the year 1955 when it became worthless.
The Tax Court also denied the claim of the petitioners that the partnership was entitled to deduct approximately a total of $40,000 in the years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953 for advances made to the corporation over a period of five years, holding that such deductions also only gave rise to a non-business debt deductible under Section 23 (k) of the 1939 Code when it became worthless in the year 1955.
It would serve no useful purpose to here dwell on the contentions of the petitioners in view of their adequate disposition by the Tax Court in its Opinion reported at 37 T.C. 347.
On review of the record we can find no error in the Tax Court’s Decision and it will be affirmed.

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