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:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. DIAMOND STANDARD FUEL CORP., Respondent.
No. 7702.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Jan. 29, 1971.
Warren M. Davison, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, with whom Arnold Ord-man, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Arthur L. Fox II, Atty., Washingon, D. C., were on brief, for petitioner.
Julius Kirie, Boston, Mass., for respondent.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is the usual petition for enforcement of a Labor Board order. The Board found that the respondent, a New Hampshire trucking concern, violated § 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), by coercively interrogating and threatening its employees with regard to their union activities; § 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (3) and (1), by laying off eight employees because they had joined the union; and § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (5) and (1), by refusing to recognize the union.
Early in September 1968 the Teamsters’ Union obtained signatures from eleven of respondent’s seventeen truck drivers authorizing it to represent them for the purpose of collective bargaining. On the basis of this action, the union contacted the company on September 13 requesting recognition, which was refused. On September 19 eight of the drivers, known by the company to be union adherents, were laid off, assertedly for lack of available work. Respondent contends that the Board erred in discrediting its witnesses and in believing employee testimony regarding the alleged coercive interrogations and the discriminatory motivation behind its layoff policy. That “questions of credibility are for the Board” is too well established to require further discussion here. N. L. R. B. v. Universal Packaging Corporation, 361 F.2d 384, 388 (1st Cir. 1966).
Respondent counters Board charges that it was obligated to recognize the union by asserting that (1) the Board’s determination that respondent’s truck drivers constitute an appropriate bargaining unit was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion and (2) the authorization cards were invalid designations of the union. With regard to the bargaining unit, we cannot say that the Board’s omission of respondent’s five garage employees was lacking in rationality or an abuse of its broad discretion to determine appropriate units. S. D. Warren Co. v. N. L. R. B., 353 F.2d 494 (1st Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 958, 86 S.Ct. 1222, 16 L.Ed.2d 300 (1966). As to the cards, they “unambiguously authorized the Union to represent the signing employee for collective bargaining purposes * * * [and made] no reference to elections.” N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 583 n. 4, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 1925, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969). There was ample evidence for the hearing examiner’s finding that there had been no discussion about using the cards to obtain an election until after they were signed. There was also ample support for the Board’s decision to certify the union without holding an election on the grounds that the company’s unfair labor practices were so “outrageous” and “pervasive” that “the invocation of traditional remedies affords no guarantee that an election will provide a more accurate index of employee sentiment than the cards.” See N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., supra at 613-615, 89 S.Ct. 1918.
Finally, respondent argues that the trial examiner’s refusal to permit pre-hearing discovery was erroneous in view of N. L. R. B. v. Schill Steel Products, Inc., 408 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1969). But that case dealt with the scope of discovery in contempt hearings before the court of appeals and was not intended to apply to proceedings before the Board.
The order of the Board will be enforced.

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: 0