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 appellants in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant 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 v. CONCORDIA ICE CO., Inc.
No. 2856.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 3, 1944.
Clarence D. Musser, of Kansas City, Mo. (Alvin J. Rockwell, Gen. Counsel, Howard Lichtenstein, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Roman Beck and Leslie J. Capek, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Charles L. Hunt, of Concordia, Kan. (Frank C. Baldwin, of Concordia, Kan., on the brief), for respondent.
Before PPIILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
IIUXMAN, Circuit Judge.
This in an application by the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order requiring respondent to cease and desist from violations of Section 8(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. The violations charged are that respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, a labor union which claimed to represent a majority of the respondent’s employees, and that respondent, in violation of the provisions of the Act, interfered with the employees’ rights to organize. The Board made appropriate findings as to the existence of these violations. The jurisdiction of the Board is conceded by respondent. The only question, therefore, in the case is whether the findings of the Board are sustained by substantial evidence.
The legal questions arising out of the passage of this act are well charted and quite generally settled. Not many new or novel questions of law remain to be considered. None are presented here. Where, as here, the jurisdiction of the Board is conceded, the only question remaining for consideration is whether there is substantial evidence supporting its findings. As is generally the case in all such controversies, there is evidence which would support a contrary finding, but as has been so many times pointed out, the resolution of such conflicts is for the Board. A reviewing court may interfere only when the findings are not supported by any substantial evidence.
To set forth the evidence which in our opinion supports the Board’s finding would require an opinion of considerable length. To recite the events in detail would add nothing of value to the legal publications, nor to cases which will arise in the future, because the facts in each case are generally entirely separate and dissimilar to those in other cases. Under these circumstances, we feel that we are not justified in unnecessarily encumbering legal publications with a detailed statement of the evidence.
We deem it sufficient to say that we have carefully examined the entire record in this case and conclude that the findings of the Board are sustained by substantial evidence, and its order will therefore be enforced.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officialss"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1