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:
Manuel CERVANTES, Appellant, v. Harold A. COX, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, Appellee.
No. 8192.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 15, 1965.
John W. Carey, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
L. D. Harris, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PICKETT, LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
LEWIS, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court for the District of New Mexico denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant, a Mexican national, was originally charged with first degree murder and is presently serving a sentence imposed by the New Mexico state court after acceptance of a plea of guilty to second degree murder. He alleges that he was denied several federal constitutional rights in the state court proceedings, each such claim springing from the contention that he could not and did not understandingly communicate with his appointed counsel because of the existence of a language barrier.
Although we have no doubt that under extreme circumstances the inability of an accused to communicate with his counsel may deny to him the right to effective representation and actually result in the entry of a plea without understanding we do not find the case at bar to be of such nature. There is no constitutional right, as such, requiring the assistance of a court-appointed interpreter to supplement the right to counsel. Nor is there a duty to an accused to furnish counsel who can communicate freely with the accused in his native tongue. The existence of a language barrier between counsel and client is merely one circumstance probing the questions of whether the accused has been adequately represented by counsel and has voluntarily and knowingly entered his plea.
Here, the trial court, rejecting the credibility of appellant’s present testimony, found as a fact that appellant had a sufficient knowledge of the English language to be completely aware of all of the proceedings in the state court. The finding is amply supported by the transcript of the state arraignment where the following occurred, all in the English language:
“THE COURT: Are you prepared to enter a plea at this time?
MR. CERVANTES: I would like to find out what is the charge before I plea.
THE COURT: Well, the Court’s been informed by Mr. Durrett, one of your attorneys, and Mr. Wilkinson is the other one, and the Assistant District Attorney that you wanted to enter a plea to a charge of murder in the second degree. Now, is that correct?
MR. CERVANTES: I do.
THE COURT: Very well, Mr. Garza, do you want to make a motion?
******
THE COURT: Now are you prepared to enter a plea at this time ?
MR. CERVANTES: Yes:
THE COURT: The Court has appointed two attorneys to represent you, and they have asked that they have time to consult with you, and I presume they have. Are you satisfied with their representation?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you know of any reason why this Court should not sentence you at this time ?
MR. CERVANTES: No, I don’t think so.
THE COURT: And you want to enter a plea of guilty to a charge of murder in the second degree, is that correct ?
MR. CERVANTES: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you have anything to say before the Court passes sentence ?
MR. CERVANTES: No, sir.”
Appellant’s independent inquiry as to the charge to which he was to plead indicates an understanding that it was to be a reduced charge and that he had the ability to communicate both with the court and with his counsel.
Affirmed.

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