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:
Castel VENABLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. NEIL, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 71-1593.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 30, 1972.
Charles L. Hendrix, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.
Bart Durham, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Tenn., for appellee; David M. Pack, Atty. Gen., of counsel.
Before McCREE and KENT, Circuit Judges, and O’SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas eorpus attacking the constitutional validity of petitioner’s conviction on his plea of guilty to second degree murder. Although two contentions were asserted, only one presents an issue cognizable in this proceeding: that petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel appointed to represent him in the state criminal proceedings. He has exhausted available state remedies.
The District Judge stated that petitioner would be entitled to an evidentiary hearing before him on his allegations of ineffective assistance but for the fact that he was not prejudiced thereby because petitioner, by his own statement at the state court post-conviction hearing, was guilty of at least second degree murder for which he received the minimum sentence (10 years) which could lawfully be imposed. The District Judge made no reference to the relationship between the alleged ineffective assistance and two charges of assault with intent to commit murder to which a plea of guilty was also accepted and for which concurrent 3 year sentences to begin after expiration of the murder sentence were imposed.
We have examined the transcript of the state post-conviction proceeding upon which the District Court based its findings, and we observe that assigned trial counsel did not testify. Recognizing that predicting the outcome of criminal trials is at best an uncertain undertaking, we conclude that petitioner may have, with the assistance of counsel, presented an effective self-defense plea at trial. He testified that the victim had cut his throat eight months before the fatal shooting, had threatened his life more than once, and that petitioner shot the victim only because he was going for his knife. The uncontradicted testimony of petitioner is that his appointed attorney spoke to him for only ten minutes and refused to listen to his version of the shooting or to investigate the surrounding circumstances. The serious default of counsel alleged here was not cured when his guilty plea was accepted because he testified that his efforts to explain that counsel’s infidelity compelled it were frustrated. Cf. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970).
We cannot determine from this record whether petitioner’s version of his relationship with his counsel is accurate. If it is, he has been denied a constitutional right. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing with the assistance of counsel and for a determination whether appellant is entitled to habeas corpus relief.

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