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:
Thomas F. DRABIK, Petitioner, v. Honorable Thomas F. MURPHY, United States District Judge, Respondent.
Docket No. 24657.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Petition Argued June 3, 1957.
Decided June 17, 1957.
George J. Engelman, New York City, for petitioner.
Arthur M. Boal, New York City, for respondent.
Before HAND, LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
HAND, Circuit Judge.
This case comes up upon a petition by the plaintiff for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to review an order of Judge Murphy, transferring an action from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of Louisiana. The action was brought under section 688 of Title 46 U.S.C.A. (the Jones Act) for physical injuries, suffered by a seaman in the port of Ancona, Italy, upon one of the defendant’s ships, alleged to have been unseaworthy. The plaintiff was brought to the Port of New York in another of the defendant’s ships, and put in a hospital, in Staten Island, New York, from which he was later discharged and went back to New Orleans, which is his residence. The defendant is a Louisiana corporation, whose principal place of business is in New Orleans; and we pass without deciding the question whether the defendant could have dismissed the action under Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 12(b) (2), 28 U.S.C.A. on the ground that the District Court for the Southern District of New York had no “jurisdiction over the person,” because an action under § 688 must be “under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located.” We may do so, because, even though we were to hold, contrary to the decisions of four district judges, that § 1391(c) of Title 28 U.S.C.A. does not allow the plaintiff in such actions to sue wherever the defendant “is doing business,” the defendant in the case at bar waived that defense, when it filed its answer on December 28th without raising the point, Rule 12(h).
Nevertheless, we shall dismiss the petition for the following reasons. Judge Weinfeld denied the defendant’s first motion for a transfer with the endorsement: “Motion denied without prejudice to renew on proper papers,” and, acting upon this as an implied leave, the defendant on February 7th renewed its motion before Judge Murphy, who granted it by an endorsement on April 2nd, followed by a formal order on April 10th, directing the action to be transferred to the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. This order was filed on April 11 in the office of the clerk of the Southern District of New York, who in compliance with the order mailed the papers to the clerk of the Eastern District of Louisiana on April 15th, where they arrived on April 18th. On the 17th the plaintiff, without applying for any stay, served upon the defendant a notice of motion for reargument, returnable on April 26, eight days after the papers had been lodged in the office of the clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Thus, when that motion came on to be heard the District Court for the Southern District of New York had already lost all jurisdiction over the action because the transfer was then complete. This follows from what we said in our decision in Magnetic Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Dings Mfg. Co., 178 F.2d 866, where we sustained an appeal from an order granting a transfer taken before the papers had been lodged in the office of the clerk of the court to which the transfer had been made. As our reason for so treating the appeal we said (page 869): “if we dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the district court, it will be too late to grant a mandamus, for the cause has been already transferred. Nevertheless, if we should have had jurisdiction to issue the writ, had the plaintiff applied for it at the time when it appealed, we think that we ought to grant it now, ignoring what is at best only a matter of form.” In Shapiro v. Bonanza Hotel Co., 9 Cir., 185 F.2d 777 the point of jurisdiction did not arise because the transfer had been denied.
Although service of the plaintiff’s motion for reargument was made upon the defendant on April 17th, and this was before the papers had been lodged with the clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, that did not stay the transfer, or preserve the jurisdiction of the District Court for the Southern District. If the plaintiff had moved seasonably for a stay, and the stay had been denied, his motion might conceivably have preserved his right, but he did not do so. Hence it follows that no relief remained open to him in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, when the case came before Judge Murphy on April 26th. What we said in Magnetic Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Dings Mfg. Co., supra, as to any relief open to him elsewhere is not involved in this proceeding; it is enough that, whatever may be his relief, if any, the District Court for the Southern District of New York may not grant it.
Petition denied.
. Bagner v. Blidberg Rothchild Co., 84 F.Supp. 973; Bounds v. Streckfus Steamers, 89 F.Supp. 242; Mincy v. Detriot & Cleveland Nav. Co., 94 F.Supp. 456; Phillips v. Pope & Talbot, 102 F.Supp. 51.

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