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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Michael GETCHEL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-3048.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 25, 1972.
Roger S. Hanson (argued), of Hanson & Milman, Beverly Hills, Cal., David Unrot, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
William C. Smitherman, U. S. Atty., James M. Wilkes, James E. Mueller, Asst. U. S. Attys., Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MOORE, MERRILL and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Leonard P. Moore, Senior Circuit Judge of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant Larry M. Getchel appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury trial (Caleb R. Layton, D.J.) for the illegal importation of marijuana (28i/2 pounds) and hashish (3 grams) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a. Indictment, Count II. Count I, charging conspiracy, was dismissed.
Appellant primarily challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove possession or knowledge of illegal importation of the narcotics. He claims that the evidence was entirely circumstantial and did not justify submission to the jury.
The chain of circumstantial evidence may be briefly summarized as follows:
Appellant, with another person, entered the United States from Mexico at Lukesville, Arizona, in a camper (pickup truck). Suspicious circumstances caused customs officials to follow the truck. Later that night the same truck was observed on a road closely paralleling a Mexican highway. The lights were turned off and when customs officials attempted to stop the vehicle it sped up, forcing an Agent off the road. Something fell or was thrown from the back of the camper. It proved to be a large sack and smaller boxes containing marijuana and hashish. The camper was discovered abandoned off the highway in the desert. Tennis shoe footprints led to Ajo, Arizona, where in the train yard were found the same tennis shoe tracks and a night bag which had been run over by a train. The Agent pursued the daily copper train out of Ajo, found the appellant on it, and arrested him. His shoes matched the footprints found around the abandoned camper. In his jacket pocket was marijuana debris and in his shirt the keys to the camper.
From the witness stand appellant gave a version of his activities quite at variance with the Government’s proof. Appraisal of the many inconsistencies in his testimony was for the jury. Attempted flight was also a factor to which the jury was entitled to give consideration. (Shorter v. United States, 412 F.2d 428 (9th Cir. 1969); Rossetti v. United States, 315 F.2d 86 (9th Cir. 1963).)
As to illegal importation, the Government identified the marijuana as having originated in South America. Appellant’s effort to disassociate himself from marijuana and the camper failed. The trial court’s charges correctly stated the law. No exceptions were taken.
The judgment of conviction 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