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:
MERIDIAN, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 15090.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Sept. 4, 1963.
James E. Mitchell, Youngstown, Ohio, for petitioner, Mitchell, Mitchell & Reed, Youngstown, Ohio, on the brief.
Michael Mulroney, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent, Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Michael I. Smith, Alan D. Pekelner, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief.
Before CECIL, Chief Judge, MILLER, Circuit Judge, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Tax Court in which it held that the gain arising from the sale of certain property, which had been leased with an option to purchase, was ordinary income rather than capital gain from the sale of a capital asset.
The DeBartolo Company is a corporation engaged in constructing buildings, and operating real estate. In order to carry out its construction projects, the DeBartolo Company formed a separate company, Meridian, Inc., the taxpayer in this case. Among the corporate objectives of Meridian, Inc. were the securing of building sites, the arranging of financing by long-term mortgages, and the negotiation of leases for buildings to be constructed by the DeBartolo Company. These buildings were to be constructed at cost, according to plans and specifications provided by Meridian, Inc. and its tenants. From 1948 through 1961, Meridian, Inc. negotiated eight long-term leases, usually for fifteen years or more, with tenants of good financial standing. Six of the leases contained an option to purchase. Five of the six options to purchase were extended to tenants of Meridian, Inc. The sixth option to purchase was extended to a third party. The five options to purchase that were granted the tenants of Meridian, Inc. were exercised as follows:
This case arose out of the fourth lease above mentioned which Meridian, Inc. made with the Century Food Markets Company, hereafter called the Century Markets. Meridian, Inc., according to the agreement, was to erect, at a contract price of $385,000, a warehouse and office building in accordance with certain revised plans and specifications prepared by an architect obtained by Century Markets. The lease was for twenty-one years, with an option to purchase. The rental payments provided in the lease, were as follows: For the first six years, $37,200 a year; for the next five years, $36,000 a year; for the next five years, $34,800 a year and, for the last five years, $29,000 a year.
The Century Food Markets Company, in the lease, was given an option to purchase the property for $346,000, later increased to $347,625. However, the option could be exercised only at the end of the fifth year of the leased term. If Century Markets did not exercise its option at that time, then Meridian, Inc. could sell the leased premises on the open market at any time after the fifth year of the lease. Century Markets exercised the option to purchase the property on December 28, 1954.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the profit of Meridian, Inc. in the amount of $135,292.39 from the sale of the property to Century Markets was taxable as ordinary income and not as capital gain. The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner’s determination on the ground that the profit on the sale of the property “was derived from property held by petitioner primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of its trade or business,” and, not being proceeds from the sale of a capital asset, was ordinary income. Title 26 U.S.C. § 1221, 1958 Ed.
The determination that property was held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business is a factual determination; each case turns upon its own particular facts; no one circumstance or factor is controlling. Bauschard v. Commissioner, 279 F.2d 115 (C.A.6). Under well-settled principles, such factual determination may not be disturbed upon appeal, unless it is clearly erroneous. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746. “Primarily,” as used in Title 26 U.S.C. § 1221, has been held to mean “essentially” or “substantially.” Greene-Haldeman v. Commissioner, 282 F.2d 884 (C.A.9); Rolling-wood Corp. v. Commissioner, 190 F.2d 263 (C.A.9); and sometimes the decision of a case turns upon the interpretation of those terms. We do not consider that any distinction between “primarily,” or “essentially,” or “substantially” is a controlling consideration in this case.
The sale of real estate appears to have been a primary, as well as an essential, or substantial, part of the business of Meridian, Inc. inasmuch as one of the purposes for which it was formed, according to its corporate charter, was “to purchase, acquire, hold, convey, lease, mortgage, or dispose of property, real or personal * * A corporation may have a dual purpose, — or, two purposes,, one of which is equally as important as the other. Bauschard v. Commissioner, supra.
In considering whether the decision of the Tax Court was clearly erroneous, regard must be had for the various circumstances relating to the lease and sale of the property by Meridian, Inc. to Century Markets. It was one of five leases negotiated during a two-year period. The building was constructed for Century Markets in accordance with the plans of its architect, and, afterward, modified, with its approval. Each of the five above-mentioned leases contained an option to purchase. Each option to purchase was, in effect, an offer to sell. In all of the five leases the option to purchase was exercised, and, accordingly, in all five instances, the properties were sold by Meridian, Inc. to the former lessees. We mention these four other transactions in which Meridian, Inc. was involved in order to place its transaction with Century Markets in the context of Meridian’s entire, and, as might be termed, its usual, operations.
Considering the corporate objectives of Meridian, Inc.; the construction of the buildings for the special convenience and use of the various lessees in accordance with their plans and specifications ; the right reserved to Meridian, Inc. to sell the properties at any time after the first five-year period of the leases, if the options to purchase were not exercised at that time; the exercise of the options, and the sale of the properties; we are unable to conclude that, under the applicable statute, the Tax Court was clearly erroneous in its determination that one of the primary or essential purposes of Meridian, Inc. was the holding of property for sale to customers in the ordinary course of its trade or business, and that the gain realized from its sale to Century Markets was ordinary income.
The decision of the Tax Court is, accordingly, 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: 0