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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Cristobal Gonzales CASTRO, Appellee.
No. 210, Docket 33235.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 17, 1969.
Decided Nov. 14, 1969.
Laura Banfield, New York City (Haliburton Fales, 2d, New York, New York, on the brief), for appellant.
Maurice M. McDermott, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, Leonard M. Marks, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before FRIENDLY, HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
HAYS, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered against appellant in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of dealing in narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 173 and 174. We affirm the conviction.
Appellant was arrested by narcotics agents armed with a search warrant who entered an apartment in which he was found. As the narcotics agents came into the apartment, Castro approached them with his hands in the air saying “I’ve got it. I will give it to you.” He then removed a bundle of glassine envelopes from his trousers and threw it on the floor. One of the agents, picking up the bundle that appellant had discarded, observed that the envelopes contained a white powder. At the same spot on the floor the agent found a tinfoil package also containing a white powder. Appellant was thereupon arrested.
While the agents were still in the apartment where appellant was arrested they tested the tinfoil package. The test showed that the white powder contained heroin. A later test of the contents of one of the glassine envelopes also revealed the presence of heroin.
After these “field-tests” were completed the contents of the tinfoil package and the glassine envelopes were transferred to a common container. A test by a government chemist of the contents of the container showed that heroin was present.
A later test by the government chemist of traces of powder scraped from the sides of the glassine envelopes also showed that the powder contained heroin.
At the trial the court ruled that the tinfoil package was inadmissible because the evidence did not sufficiently show appellant’s possession of the package. However, the common container and the results of the test on its contents were introduced over appellant’s objection and appellant now assigns this as error. Appellant’s contention is that admission of the evidence was prejudicial since the test of the contents of the container could establish only that either the tinfoil package or the glassine envelopes contained heroin, but could not prove that the heroin came from the envelopes rather than from the tinfoil package.
Assuming that the trial court’s ruling as to the admissibility of the tinfoil package was correct, the evidence of the contents of the container would not establish the necessary basis for a finding of appellant’s guilt. However, the field test and the chemical test of the traces of powder in the glassine envelopes provided ample evidence to sustain appellant’s conviction, and we do not consider the admission of the evidence of the test of the contents of the container to be sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal. See United States v. Wanton, 380 F.2d 792 (2d Cir. 1967).
Appellant also assigns as error the charge of the trial judge that “every witness is presumed to speak the truth.” In United States v. Bilotti, 380 F.2d 649, 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 944, 88 S.Ct. 308, 19 L.Ed.2d 300 (1967), this court said of such a charge that it “serves no useful purpose,” and that “it may in some cases be very misleading and the trial courts would best refrain from using it.”
In the present case after hearing objection to the charge the court withdrew it and instructed the jury to disregard it. We believe that by this action the possible bad effects of the charge were neutralized.
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: 1