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 v. DANT et al.
No. 12985.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
March 20, 1952.
George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, Norton J. Come, Morris A. Solomon, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
R. S. Smethurst, R. S. Haslam, Washington, D. C., John T. Casey and Casey, Kriesien & Palmer, all of Portland, Or., for respondent.
Before MATHEWS, STEPHENS and BONE, Circuit Judges.
MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.
The National Labor Relations Board has petitioned this court to enforce an order issued by the Board in a proceeding against respondents, Thomas W. Dant and others, partners doing business as Dant & Russell, Limited. Answering the petition, respondents pray that it be denied and that the order be vacated.
The proceeding was initiated by International Woodworkers of America, Local 6-7, a labor organization hereafter called the union, which was at all pertinent times an affiliate of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, a national labor organization hereafter called the C.I.O. The union initiated the proceeding on August 3, 1949, by making and filing with the Board a charge under subsection (b) of § 10 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S. C.A. § 160, thereby charging that respondents had engaged and. were engaging in unfair labor practices listed in § 8 of the Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158. On March 28, 1950, the Board issued a complaint pursuant to the charge. On that complaint, after notice and hearing, the Board issued the order here sought to be enforced.
Subsection (h) of § 9 of the Act, 29 U.S. C.A. § il59, provides that “no complaint shall be issued pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of section 10 of this Act [29 U.S.C.A. § 160] unless there is on file with the Board an affidavit executed contemporaneously or within the preceding twelve-month period by each officer of such labor organization and the officers of any national or international labor organization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit that he is not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with such party, and that he does not believe in, and is not a member of or supports any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods.” For brevity’s sake, such affidavits are hereafter called non-Communist affidavits.
As indicated above, the complaint in this proceeding was issued on March 28, 1950, pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization (the union) under subsection (b) on August 3, 1949. There were on file with the Board on August 3, 1949, non-Communist affidavits executed by the officers of the union. However, there were not on file with the Board on August 3, 1949, non-Communist affidavits executed by the officers of the national labor organization (the C.I.O.) of which the union was an affiliate. Therefore the Board was not empowered to entertain the charge or to issue the complaint or the order. See subsection (h), supra; N. L. R. B. v. Highland Park Mfg, Co., 341 U.S. 322, 71 S.Ct. 758, 95 L.Ed. 969; N. L. R. B. v. Postex Cotton Mills, 5 Cir., 181 F.2d 919; N. L. R. B. v. J. I. Case Co., 8 Cir., 189 F.2d 599;. N. L. R. B. v. Clark Shoe Co., 1 Cir., 189 F.2d 731.
Non-Communist affidavits executed by the officers of the C.I.O. were filed with the Board in December, 1949' — -long after the charge was made — and were on file with the Board when the complaint was issued. However, they had no retroactive effect and hence did not validate the charge or empower the Board to entertain it or to issue the complaint or the order. See N. L. R. B. v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., supra; N. L. R. B. v. J. I. Case Co., supra; N. L. R. B. v. Clark Shoe Co., supra.
Petition denied and order set aside.

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