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 ex rel. LUTZ v. RAGEN, Warden.
No. 9500.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Oct. 20, 1948.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1949.
Louis C. Karbiner, of Chicago, 111., for appellant.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. and William C. Wines, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Raymond S. Sarnow and James C. Murray, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellee.
Before SPARKS, Chief Judge, KER-HER, Circuit Judge, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
KERNER, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus brought in •the District Court after petitioner had exhausted his remedies in the State court. Gn June 3, 1935, petitioner was duly indicted and .thereafter tried before a jury, found guilty in the Circuit Court of Grundy County, Illinois, of' the crime of murder, .and by that court, pursuant to the verdict -of the jury, sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of his natural life.
The ground upon which the petition for writ of habeas corpus was based was that his trial and conviction were without due .process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that hi-s conviction was obtained by virtue of the false testimony of two witnesses whom he alleged were 'bribed by the prosecuting attorney. See White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 763, 65 S.Ct. 978, 89 L.Ed. 1348.
The record discloses that after the Dis-' strict Court had issued the habeas corpus writ, the petitioner was produced in court and testimony was heard. At these -hearings petitioner was represented by counsel, after which the court found against the petitioner and dismissed the writ on May 2, 1947.
In this court appellee has made no motion to dismiss the appeal, but he does call our attention to the fact that petitioner did not file his notice of appeal until October 5, 1947, more than five months after ■the entry of the order from which he appeals, and in his brief states: “The Attorney General does not desire to defeat any prisoner’s right to review upon a technicality. He does, however, deem it to be his duty to call this court’s attention to the fact that it appears to have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.”
Appeal is granted to a losing party on condition that he complies with the terms of the law whereby it is authorized. It is he who seeks relief from the operation of a judgment or decree against him, and it devolves upon him to act to that end. United States v. New National Coal & Mining Co., 7 Cir., 72 F.2d 168. By statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 230, the time tor taking an appeal in this case was limited to three months. While we appreciate the generosity of counsel for the appellee that -he has no desire to defeat Lutz’s right to review the order of the District Court, we must examine our jurisdiction even though the parties do not question it, Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364, 366, 40 S.Ct. 347, 64 L.Ed. 616, and since the application for an appeal must be within three months after the entry of the judgment, United States ex rel. Kreuter v. Baldwin, 7 Cir., 49 F.2d 262; Robertson v. Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Co., 4 Cir., 95 F.2d 780; Morrow v. Wood, 5 Cir., 126 F.2d 1021; Mosier v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2 Cir., 132 F.2d 710; Smiddy v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 110 F.2d 1015, it cannot be extended by waiver, consent or even order of court. Mansfield, C. & L. M. Ry. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 4 S.Ct. 510, 28 L.Ed. 462; Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449, 453; 20 S.Ct. 690, 44 L.Ed. 842; Benitez v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 1 Cir., 109 F.2d 743. We must, therefore, hold t-hat we are without power to alter the statute.
In concluding, we think it only just that we record here the fact that Mr. Louis C. Karbiner had no connection with this case until he was appointed by this court to represent petitioner on this appeal. He has submitted a helpful brief and has orally, earnestly and ably argued in behalf of petitioner. We are grateful for the services thus rendered.
Appeal dismissed.
In 1948 Revision, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2107.

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