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:
J. Norman “Stoney” STONE, Appellant, v. The Honorable WYOMING SUPREME COURT, Appellee.
No. 5372.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Aug. 4, 1956.
J. Norman Stone, Washington, D. C., pro se.
Robert H. McPhillamey, Deputy Atty. Gen. (George F. Guy, Atty. Gen. of Wyoming, and Howard B. Black, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Wyoming, were with him on the brief), amicus curiae.
Before BRATTON, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, and ROGERS, District Judge.
BRATTON, Chief Judge.
J. Norman Stone, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, made application for admission to the Bar of Wyoming. After certain intervening procedure, the application was denied. Application of Stone, Wyo., 288 P.2d 767. Petitioner then filed in the United States Court for Wyoming this proceeding in which he sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Supreme Court of Wyoming to admit him to the Bar of that state. Honorable T. Blake Kennedy, United States Judge for Wyoming, retired, but assigned to active service in the court, entered an order dismissing the petition for want of jurisdiction. Petitioner then filed in the proceeding a pleading styled “Motion for Permission to Exercise Legal Right of Argument in Open Court and for Disqualification of Honorable Judge Blake T. Kennedy”. An order was entered denying the motion. Petitioner thereafter filed a pleading denominated “Motion to Reconsider Honorable Court’s Order Overruling Plaintiff’s Motion to Exercise Legal Right of Argument in Open Court and for Disqualification of Honorable Judge T. Blake Kennedy and Motion for Citation by Honorable Judge TV Blake Kennedy of Cases Supporting Said Denial as Explained in Judge’s Memorandum”. An order was entered denying such motion. Later, petitioner filed a pleading styled “Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and for Disqualification of Hon. T. Blake Kennedy, Retired Judge”. An affidavit of prejudice and a proposed amended complaint were tendered with the motion. At the same time, petitioner filed a pleading styled “Motion for Leave to Argue Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and for Disqualification of Honorable T. Blake Kennedy, Retired Judge”. At that juncture a letter was filed in the proceeding. The letter was written by the judge to the clerk. It was stated in the letter that the orders already entered in the cause formed the basis of any appeal upon the question of the court’s action in declining jurisdiction and on all collateral issues involved; that the court would make no further orders in the case except those necessary to expedite an appeal; that the letter should become a part of the files in the case; and that a copy thereof be transmitted to plaintiff for his information. Petitioner appealed.
Courts of appeals are courts of limited jurisdiction; and save for excepted instances in which it is provided otherwise by statute, they have jurisdiction to review only final decisions of the district courts. Reeves v. Beardall, 316 U.S. 283, 62 S.Ct. 1085, 86 L.Ed. 1478; Crutcher v. Joyce, 10 Cir., 134 F.2d 809; State Tax Commission of Utah v. United States, 10 Cir., 136 F.2d 903; Breeding Motor Freight Lines v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 10 Cir., 172 F.2d 416, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 814, 70 S.Ct. 54, 94 L.Ed. 493; Kanatser v. Chrysler Corp., 10 Cir., 195 F.2d 104; The Atchi-son, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Jackson, 10 Cir., 235 F.2d 390.
With exceptions which do not have any material bearing here, Rule of Civil Procedure 73(a), 28 U.S.C.A., provides that when an appeal is permitted by law from a district court to a court of appeals, it shall be taken by filing with the district court a notice of appeal, and that such notice shall be filed within thirty days after entry of the judgment from which the appeal is taken. And the filing of the notice within that time is essential to the jurisdiction of the court of appeals. Spengler v. Hughes Tool Co., 10 Cir., 169 F.2d 166. The order of the court dismissing the petition for the writ was entered on December 16, 1955, and the notice of appeal by which the proceeding was brought to this court was filed February 28, 1956. If the notice could be considered as an attempt to appeal from the final order dismissing the petition for the writ, it did not operate to effectuate such appeal for the reason that it was not filed within the time specified in the rule.
Rule of Civil Procedure 73(b), 28 U.S. C.A., provides in presently pertinent part that the notice of appeal shall designate the judgment or part thereof appealed from. That exaction constitutes a mandatory requirement and the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is limited to the judgment or portion thereof designated. Long v. Union Pacific R. Co., 10 Cir., 206 F.2d 829.
The notice of appeal filed in this case did not make any reference to the final order dismissing the petition for the writ. It expressly stated that the appeal was taken “from the order on motion of plaintiff to reconsider motion entered in this action on January 25, 1956, and from a communication directed to Clerk, U. S. District Court for Wyoming by Honorable Judge T. Blake Kennedy, retired, * * * stating that he will make no further orders in this case * A direct appeal will not lie from a post-judgment order denying a motion to reconsider earlier action taken on a post-judgment motion. American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allison, 5 Cir., 189 F.2d 255; Vaughan v. City Bank & Trust Co., Natchez, Miss., 5 Cir., 218 F.2d 802, cer-tiorari denied 350 U.S. 832, 76 S.Ct. 67. Neither will a direct appeal lie from an announced declination to enter further post-judgment orders in a case. And a dissatisfied suitor may not maintain a direct appeal from an order denying requested disqualification of the judge. Skirvin v. Mesta, 10 Cir., 141 F.2d 668.
The appeal is dismissed.

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: 1