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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Percy PRUITT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16646.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
June 27, 1968.
Percy Pruitt, pro se.
Thomas A. Foran, U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., John Peter Lulinski, Gerald M. Werksman, William P. Cagney, Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel, for appellee.
Before CASTLE, Chief Judge, and HASTINGS and KILEY, Circuit Judges.
HASTINGS, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Percy Pruitt appeals pro se from a final order of the district court denying his motion for correction of sentence, filed pursuant to Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Title 18, U.S.C.A. This cause was ordered submitted on the record and briefs, without oral argument.
Defendant was tried to the district court, jury trial having been waived, on a four-count indictment charging violations of the federal narcotics laws. He was found guilty and sentenced on April 6, 1963 to serve a total of six years imprisonment. He was represented by counsel at his trial.
On April 9, 1963, three days after sentence, defendant, pursuant to Rule 38(a) (2), as it existed prior to July 1, 1966 and at the time of sentencing, elected not to begin serving his sentence and he so notified the district court in writing by letter.
Two days later, on April 11, 1963, defendant’s trial attorney wrote to defendant and stated that he no longer desired to represent defendant.
On July 29, 1963, we appointed an attorney to represent defendant on his appeal from the conviction. The appeal was heard by this court and the conviction was affirmed April 9, 1964. United States v. Pruitt, 7 Cir., 331 F.2d 232.
On May 4, 1964, defendant’s sentence began to run. The total elapsed time from April 9, 1963 to May 4, 1964 is 390 days. By his Rule 35 motion, defendant sought credit on his sentence for the 390 days he spent incarcerated in jail pending his appeal. This the district court denied and such denial is the subject of this appeal.
The principal question before us is whether a defendant who has signed an election not to begin serving his sentence, pursuant to Rule 38(a) (2) as it existed in 1963, is entitled to credit for the time he spent in jail pending the determination of his appeal.
It seems clearly established that, prior to the 1966 amendment to Rule 38(a) (2), the defendant’s election not to begin serving his sentence serves to exclude credit for time spent in custody after sentence, such as while on appeal. See notes of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules proposing the 1966 amendment; the legislative history commenting on the effect of prior Rule 38(a) (2); and Leyvas v. United States, 9 Cir., 371 F.2d 714, 718 (1967), and cases cited therein.
The reason for this interpretation is well stated in Leyvas, supra, at 718:
“The rule has long been recognized that where under Rule 38(a) (2), as it existed prior to July 1, 1966, a convicted person appeals and elects not to commence service of the sentence, he is deprived of the right to claim credit for the time spent in jail pending the disposition of the appeal. This is because, under 18 U.S.C. 3568, a sentence begins to run when the defendant is received at the place of service (citing cases). Thus, under Rule 38(a) (2), as it existed [prior to 1966 * * *], applicants seeking an order requiring the warden to give [them] credit on the sentence(s) for time spent in custody pending the appeal, have been uniformly denied, (citing cases).”
Additionally, defendant contends that his election was taken without the advice of counsel. However, he acknowledges that he wrote a letter to the district court on April 9, 1963, whereby he elected not to serve. At that time, defendant was represented by his trial counsel who two days later (April 11, 1963) wrote to defendant and stated he no longer desired to represent him. It would appear, with no showing to the contrary, that defendant acted pro se in making his election not to serve.
Further, as earlier mentioned, we appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Had defendant desired legal advice on his election not to serve and had he acted thereon he could have taken steps to revoke his waiver and begun serving his sentence on or about July 29, 1963. See Shelton v. United States, 5 Cir., 234 F.2d 132,134 (1956).
We have examined authorities cited by defendant and find them inapposite.
We hold that the district court correctly denied defendant credit on his sentence for the time spent in jail pending his appeal.
The order of the district court appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. In effect in 1963, Rule 38(a) (2) reads: “Imprisonment-A sentence of imprisonment shall be stayed if an appeal is taken and the defendant elects not to commence service of the sentence or is admitted to bail.”
. H.R.Rep. No. 2058, 86th Cong.2d Sess. 1960, U.S.Cong. Code and Ad.News, p. 3288. Also, H.R.Rep. No. 1541, 89th Cong.2d Sess. 1966, U.S.Cong. Code and Ad.News, pp. 2293, 2306.

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