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:
Levon BROWN, Petitioner, v. L. E. DAGGETT, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Sandstone, Minnesota, Respondent. Levon BROWN, Petitioner, v. James PAGE, Chairman, U. S. Board of Parole, et al., Respondent.
Nos. 71-1707, 71-1730.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted March 17, 1972.
Decided April 12, 1972.
Levon Brown, pro se.
Robert G. Renner, U. S. Atty. and Joseph M. Livermore, Asst. U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., made appearance for appellees in this Court. No brief was filed by counsel for appellees.
Before GIBSON, HEANEY and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Levon Brown filed two petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the District Court. Both petitions were based upon substantially the same facts. The District Court denied relief in each case and Brown appealed. We have consolidated the appeals.
Brown has been incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution at Sandstone, Minnesota, on a five-year sentence for forgery. It appears from the record before us that Brown is also wanted in Wisconsin for parole violation. In August of 1971, the United States Board of Parole granted Brown a limited parole in order to permit him to dispose of the outstanding Wisconsin charge. Brown was taken by the Pine County, Minnesota, Sheriff from Sandstone to Pine City, Minnesota, for delivery to Wisconsin authorities. Once in Pine City, Brown refused to submit to Wisconsin’s custody. He was then returned to Sandstone and has remained there to the present time.
Brown contends that his return to Sandstone was illegal in that it was unauthorized by law' and denied him the right to contest extradition. He also contends that he was entitled to the assistance of an attorney. The latter contention apparently stems from Brown’s belief that his parole was revoked and he was, thus entitled to a hearing before he was returned to Sandstone.
We find no merit in any of these contentions. The Board of Parole has wide discretion to determine under what conditions an inmate is to be paroled. See, O’Callahan v. Attorney General, 338 F.2d 989 (1st Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 926, 85 S.Ct. 1563, 14 L.Ed.2d 685 (1965); Gould v. Green, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 363, 141 F.2d 533 (1944). It is clear that the Parole Board may parole an inmate to the custody of detainers. Mingo v. United States, 350 F.2d 313 (10th Cir. 1965); Carson v. Executive Director, Department of Parole, 292 F.2d 468 (10th Cir. 1961).
Brown was paroled “to the physical custody of detainers only.” Under this language, his parole was ineffective until the moment he was taken into physical custody by Wisconsin authorities. Since Brown’s transfer to Wisconsin never occurred, the parole never became operative. Cf., Small v. United States Board of Parole, 421 F.2d 1388 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1079, 90 S.Ct. 1532, 25 L.Ed.2d 815 (1970).
Under this view of the ease, we need not consider whether Brown was entitled to the services of an attorney or to a hearing. Since the parole never became effective, there was no revocation and thus no hearing was required. See, Morrissey v. Brewer, 443 F.2d 942 (8th Cir.), cert. granted, 404 U.S. 999, 92 S.Ct. 568, 30 L.Ed.2d 552 (1971).
Nothing we have said in this opinion should be construed to determine the right of any parolee, who has been paroled to something other than the custody of detainers only, to contest extradition.
The denial of the petitions for writ of habeas corpus is 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: 0