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:
Paul Louis LOCKHART, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16848.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Aug. 11, 1961.
Paul Louis Lockhart, pro se.
Before JOHNSEN, Chief Judge, and MATTHES, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The trial court permitted appellant to file notice of appeal without payment of fee but denied him leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, certifying that the appeal was without merit and so not taken in good faith.
Appellant challenges this certificate and seeks leave from us to prosecute the appeal in forma pauperis. He also asks for the appointment of counsel to represent him.
The appeal is from an order, which made denial on its face of a motion by appellant for vacation of his sentence, under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
Appellant had waived indictment under Rule 7(b) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., and had pleaded guilty to an information charging him, under 18 U.S.C. § 2114, with having robbed a clerk, in charge of a Post Office Contract Station, of $180.87 in funds belonging to the United States, of which such clerk had lawful charge, custody and control, and having in effecting the robbery put the clerk’s life in jeopardy by the use of a loaded automatic pistol. The court had imposed the mandatory 25-year term required by § 2114 for this aggravated degree of the offense.
The basis of appellant’s motion under § 2255 was that, on the facts stated by the Government at the time of the sentencing, the robbery involved was not able to constitute an offense under § 2114 of the Criminal Code. The Assistant ‘United States Attorney, in his comments to the court, had remarked that the robbery occurred at 5:45 p. m. The agreement between the Government and the robbery victim, covering the location of the contract station in the latter’s drug store, required the victim to “conduct postal matters” only between the hours of 10:00 a. m. and 5:00 p. m. Hence, appellant argues, at the time of the robbery, the victim “was conducting business other than postal matters,” and the robbery and putting of his life in jeopardy therefore did not occur in his status of a postal employee.
Section 2114 does not make the robbery a matter of commission against persons of particular title, position, or duties, but of commission against “any person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States.”
Any characterization in an indictment or information of the victim’s title, position, or duties beyond the responsibility set out in § 2114 is surplus-age and of no consequence. Banks v. United States, 7 Cir., 239 F.2d 409, 410; Jones v. United States, 7 Cir., 72 F.2d 873, 874; Martin v. United States, 10 Cir., 241 F.2d 693, 694.
Under the terms “charge, control, or custody” in § 2114, the robbery offense is subject to being committed by a taking from the victim’s physical or manual possession, or by a taking from his presence when the mail matter, money or other property of the Government is subject to his control. Randazzo v. United States, 8 Cir., 300 F. 794, 797.
Here, the postal money taken was within the victim’s presence and was subject to his control, at the time appellant entered the store for the purpose of committing the robbery. As a matter of fact, from the record of the sentencing proceedings, the money was in fact taken from the victim’s manual possession, since he was required at gun’s point to produce it and turn it over. In either event, however, it would constitute a robbery committed against him, as one having lawful charge, custody and control of the postal funds involved; and this would be true no matter in what task he may have been engaged at the time appellant entered the store — whether selling stamps or drugs.
It should perhaps be added that, while we have engaged in pointing out that appellant’s contention is utterly without any possibility of substance, the question which he has sought to raise is one which could properly have been refused any examination at all in a § 2255 proceeding. One who has pleaded guilty to a criminal charge cannot ordinarily challenge the allegations of fact contained in the charge as an attack upon the Judgment through a § 2255 proceeding. Cf. Hood v. United States, 8 Cir., 152 F.2d 431, 433.
To clear the records of the appeal pending from the filing of notice of appeal, the case will be permitted to be docketed without payment of fee and it will thereupon be dismissed as frivolous. The .request for appointment of counsel is denied.
Appeal dismissed.

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