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:
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Frank MAYBEE, Appellant, v. Robert W. DUGGAN, District Attorney for Allegheny County and James P. Maroney, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
No. 17119.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Submitted on Briefs April 15, 1968.
Decided May 14, 1968.
Frank Maybee, pro se.
Charles B. Watkins, Asst. Dist. Atty., Robert W. Duggan, Dist. Atty., County of Allegheny, Pittsburgh, Pa., for ap-pellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, FREEDMAN and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Frank Maybee appeals from the dismissal below of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking bail pending the outcome of the appeal of his conviction in the Pennsylvania state courts. Petitioner waived trial by jury and was found guilty on November 18, 1965 by Pennsylvania Judge Lloyd F. Weaver. Thereafter, petitioner attempted to secure his release on bail both in the Pennsylvania state courts and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. All of these attempts were unsuccessful. At the same time petitioner was prosecuting the direct appeal of his conviction through the Pennsylvania courts. This resulted in the reversal of his conviction and an order granting a new trial. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Maybee, alias LeRoy Coleman and James McCray, Pa., 239 A.2d 332 (Opinion Filed: March 15, 1968).
The reversal of petitioner’s conviction and the order granting a new trial indicate that the exhaustion requirements of Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 have not been met. The question of whether petitioner should be granted bail pending the outcome of his new trial is an issue that should be determined by the Penn-sylvaia state courts.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed without prejudice to petitioner’s right to reapply to the appropriate Pennsylvania state court for his release on bail.

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