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. STILLEY PLYWOOD CO., Inc.
No. 6411.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 8, 1952.
Decided Oct. 13, 1952.
Owsley Vose, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Normán Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Maurice Alexandre, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
John B. McCutcheon, Conway, S. C. (Suggs & McCutcheon, Conway, S. C., and Arthur M. Williams, Jr., Columbia, S. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board which directed the Stilley Plywood Company of Conway, South Carolina, to cease and desist from unfair labor practices, to bargain in good faith with a labor union which had been chosen as bargaining representative by its employees and to reinstate with back pay certain employees found to have been discriminatorily discharged or denied reinstatement after a strike brought about in part by unfair labor practices. The facts are fully set forth in the decision and order of the Board and the lengthy report of the trial examiner and need not be repeated here. We think that the findings and order of the Board are sustained by substantial evidence on the whole record except the findings as to the discriminatory discharge of Jethro Rabón and the order for his reinstatement. Respondent admits that the Board’s findings with respect to the anti-union activities and coercion in violation of section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1), are supported by substantial evidence; and there can be no doubt that its findings with respect to refusal to bargain in good faith and the discriminatory discharges of the employees Lewis and Allen are likewise amply supported. While the demand for increase in wages and respondent’s refusal thereof were doubtless potent factors in bringing about the strike, there is substantial support for the Board’s finding that respondent’s refusal to bargain and other unfair labor practices were also con-, tributary factors; and where unfair labor practices are a factor in bringing about a strike the Board may shape its remedies with a view of removing the effect of such practices. As said by Judge Goodrich in Berkshire Knitting Mills v. N. L. R. B., 3 Cir., 139 F.2d 134, 137: “Where the causes contributing to a strike consist of unfair labor practices and employee desires for wage betterments, the latter should not excuse the employer from the legal consequences that flow from its conduct which transcends the permissible bounds under the National Labor Relations Act”.
Question is raised about the amount of back pay to be awarded, but this is a matter to be worked out in future orders of the Board. Certainly, the orders should do no more than make whole the employees discriminatorily discharged or denied reinstatement by awarding them an amount which will equalize their earnings with those-not subjected to discrimination. They should not be awarded wages for the time that the mill was standing idle nor should such periods of idleness deprive them of the right to return to work accorded other employees.
The order of the Board will be modified by striking therefrom the finding as to the discriminatory discharge of Jethro Rabón and the order of reinstatement with back pay based thereon; and as so modified the order of the Board will be enforced.
Modified and enforced.

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