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:
Wayne Eugene DUMOND, Appellant, v. A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee.
No. 90-1034.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 1990.
Decided Aug. 9, 1990.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 5, 1990.
John Wesley Hall, Jr., Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
Theodore Holder, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before MAGILL, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and BEAM, Circuit Judge.
BEAM, Circuit Judge.
Wayne Eugene Dumond appeals a United States Magistrate’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). In 1985, Dumond was convicted by an Arkansas jury of kidnapping and raping a seventeen-year-old high school girl, and sentenced to eonsecu-tive terms of life imprisonment and twenty years. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed Dumond’s conviction, Dumond v. State, 290 Ark. 595, 721 S.W.2d 663 (Ark.1986) (Dumond I), and denied his application for post-conviction relief. Dumond v. State, 294 Ark. 379, 743 S.W.2d 779 (Ark.1988) (Dumond II). Dumond filed a petition in district court seeking habeas corpus relief, which relief the court denied. Du-mond filed his first appeal from the district court’s denial of his petition, and we reversed and remanded for a further hearing. We based this remand on newly discovered scientific evidence involving genetic testing. Dumond v. Lockhart, 885 F.2d 419 (8th Cir.1989). Following a hearing before the magistrate in which the victim testified about facts relevant to the results of the genetic testing, the magistrate held that Dumond “failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate his newly discovered evidence claim” and dismissed Dumond’s petition. Dumond v. Lockhart, No. PB-C-88-631, slip op. at 4 (E.D.Ark. Dec. 15, 1989). We affirm.
On September 11, 1984, Ashley Stevens was abducted from her home in Forrest City, Arkansas. A man entered Stevens’s home and forced her at gunpoint to follow him. The two drove in her automobile to a secluded area. The man forced Stevens to remove her jeans and underpants and he positioned them beneath her. Stevens testified that the rapist then forced her to engage in vaginal intercourse. The assailant used a prophylactic, but he did not ejaculate. The rapist withdrew from Stevens, pulled off the prophylactic, and forced her to perform oral sex. Stevens testified that the rapist ejaculated in her mouth but she spit it out on the ground. The assailant again forced Stevens to engage in vaginal intercourse but he purportedly did not ejaculate. Thus, Stevens testified that the rapist ejaculated only during oral sex.
As indicated, Dumond was convicted of kidnapping and raping Stevens. After his appeal was denied by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Dumond I, Dumond obtained new counsel and submitted Stevens’s clothing to Dr. Moses Schanfield, an expert in genetic testing. Dr. Schanfield conducted an immunoglobulin allotype test on semen located on Stevens’s pant leg. Dr. Schanfield concluded that if the semen was “pure” and not mixed with vaginal fluids, there was a greater than ninety-nine percent probability that Du-mond was not the rapist because the semen lacked a genetic marker which Dumond possesses. Thus, if the rapist ejaculated only during oral sex, as Stevens testified, the semen on the pant leg was “pure” because saliva does not alter the immuno-globulin allotype test. If vaginal fluids were mixed with the semen, however, Dr. Schanfield reported that the results would be inconclusive.
In Dumond II, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied Dumond’s petition for post-conviction relief under Ark.R.Crim.P. 37.1. Dumond asserted that because of the newly discovered evidence of this genetic test, due process dictated that he was entitled to a new trial. The court found that Du-mond’s claim regarding the newly discovered evidence was a direct, rather than a collateral attack on the judgment. Accordingly, Dumond’s claim was not within the purview of Rule 37.1. Dumond II, 743 S.W.2d at 782.
In his writ of habeas corpus petition to the federal district court, Dumond presented his newly discovered evidence claim and attempted to compel Stevens’s testimony at the habeas hearing. As stated, Stevens had testified at trial that the rapist ejaculated only during oral sex. Accordingly, Dumond asserted that the semen was not mixed with vaginal fluids and, thus, was “pure” semen. Therefore, Dumond argued, he could not be the rapist because the semen lacked his genetic marker. The United States Magistrate quashed Du-mond’s subpoena and found that the record did not support Dumond’s assertion that the semen on Stevens’s pant leg was “pure” semen. Dr. Schanfield had tested Stevens’s jeans and underclothing and had found large amounts of semen, some of which was deposited vaginally. Thus, there was no strong evidence that the semen on the pant leg was “pure.”
As indicated, pursuant to Dumond’s first appeal, we reversed and remanded for a further hearing based on purported inconsistencies in the evidence concerning the location and the number of ejaculations. We stated that relief could be granted to Dumond only if his newly discovered evidence “would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” Dumond, 885 F.2d at 421 (quoting Mastrian v. McManus, 554 F.2d 813, 823 (8th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 913, 97 S.Ct. 2985, 53 L.Ed.2d 1099 (1977)). Without offering Du-mond the opportunity to question Stevens concerning the specific details of the location and the number of ejaculations, we believed that we were incapable of determining whether the evidence probably would produce an acquittal.
On December 13, 1989, Stevens testified at the hearing on remand. Stevens offered the same facts concerning the rapist’s actions as she had testified to at trial, and she stated that she did not know how semen got on her pant leg. See Hearing Transcript at 11. In addition, Stevens testified that she could not explain why the amount of semen on her clothing was equal to approximately three ejaculations when she could remember her assailant ejaculating only once. The magistrate found that Stevens’s testimony did not aid Dumond because her testimony actually tended to cast further doubt on the theory that the semen on the pant leg was “pure” semen. Stevens stated that after her assailant ejaculated during oral sex, she turned her head and spit out the ejaculate onto the grass by her head. This ejaculate was the only possible source of “pure” semen. Stevens also testified that her jeans were underneath her and not by her head. Thus, the magistrate stated that it was “highly unlikely that the oral ejaculate would have come in contact with the pants.” Dumond, No. PB-C-88-631, slip op. at 2. Accordingly, the magistrate concluded that without proof that the semen on the pant leg was “pure,” the genetic testing and Dr. Schanfield’s opinion concerning whether Dumond was the assailant were inconclusive. Further, the magistrate determined that Dumond was actually raising an insufficiency of the evidence claim because he argued that Stevens’s confusion on the location and number of ejaculations compelled a total rejection of the evidence identifying him as the rapist. The magistrate, however, determined that Stevens’s identification testimony was very strong and there was sufficient evidence on which the jury could base its guilty verdict. The magistrate dismissed Dumond’s petition.
As we previously stated, the standard in this case is whether the newly discovered evidence “would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” Dumond, 885 F.2d at 421. As earlier indicated, at the hearing on remand, Stevens responded to questions concerning her rapist’s ejaculations. Even with her testimony, Dumond, who had the burden of proof, was not able to establish that the semen was “pure.” After examining Stevens’s testimony at the hearing on remand and the strong evidence against Dumond which was presented at trial, we hold that the newly discovered evidence would not “probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” Id. Thus, we affirm the magistrate’s denial of Dumond’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
. The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
. As this court in Dumond, 885 F.2d at 420 n. 1, explained:
Immunoglobulins are antibody molecules which are found in the blood and other body fluids and which carry genetic markers known as allotypes. A genetic marker is simply an inherited trait. Thus, the immunoglo-bulins are tested to detect the presence of genetic markers. For instance, if an individual is known to have a certain genetic marker and the allotyping test reveals that the marker is missing in the fluid being tested, then the fluid could not have come from that individual.
. The parties consented to the United States Magistrate’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1988).

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