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:
FLEISH v. JOHNSTON, Warden.
No. 10672.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 29, 1944.
Writ of Certiorari Denied Feb. 5,1945.
See 65 S.Ct. 587.
John Bennett King, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and Joseph Karesh, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for .appellee.
Before MATHEWS, STEPHENS and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
On the ground that he had already served the authorized portion of his sentence of imprisonment, Louis Fleish petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied. He appeals.
Appellant was originally tried and convicted under six counts of an indictment charging violations of ,the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 1132-1132q (1934 Ed.) [26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, §§ 2700 (b)(2), 2720 et seq., 3260 et seq.]. On April 7, 1939, he was sentenced to be imprisoned for consecutive terms of five years on each of the six counts and to pay a fine of $2,000. Having served his sentence for one count, appellant requests his release from imprisonment.
Count One of the indictment under which sentence was pronounced charged that appellant had received and possessed a described firearm on which the transfer tax had not been paid. Count Three charged that he possessed the same described firearm without registering it. Counts Twelve, Fifteen, Eighteen, and Twenty-one contained the same charge as Count Three except that firearms were variously described in each. All counts designated the same time and place for the occurrence of the alleged offenses.
Appellant claims that the trial court had no jurisdiction to impose more than one sentence under the indictment since the National Firearms Act created but one punishable offense and since the six counts charged but one offense.
The first contention is based on the section of the National Firearms Act fixing the penalty of a $2000 fine or five years’ imprisonment, or both, upon “any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements” of the Act, 26 U.S.C. A. § 1132m (1934 Ed.) [26 U.S.C.A. Int. Rev.Code, § 2729]. Appellant insists that this penalty provision is the key to the Act with respect to the problem herein involved, that the words “any of the requirements” can mean only “one or more of the requirements,” and that therefore only a single punishment is authorized by the statute irrespective of how many sections were violated by a single event. Identical phraseology was held not .to impose a single punishment in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 305, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306.
The claim that all six counts in the indictment charge one crime is unfounded. The offense alleged in Count One is distinct from that alleged in the other five counts. This court has recently held that the possession of a firearm which has not been registered and the possession of the same firearm upon which the transfer tax has not been paid constitute two distinct offenses, Crapo v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 863. The reasoning of that decision is equally applicable to the facts herein.
Counts Three, Twelve, Fifteen, Eighteen, and Twenty-one charge offenses distinct from each other. They allege violations of § 1132d, Title 26 U.S.C.A. (1934 Ed.) [§ 3261(b), 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code:]
“(a) Within sixty days after the thirtieth day after June 26, 1934, every person possessing a firearm shall register, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment * *
It is evident that the statute requires every fir'earm to be registered. The registration involves a complete identification of each individual firearm as well as a statement concerning its present possessor and whereabouts. A record of the latter statement without the identification of the weapon itself obviously would fail to satisfy the terms of the Act. The crime defined by the statute is the failure to register a specific firearm in one’s possession, not the failure to indicate generally that one possesses firearms. Cf. the statute in People v. Puppilo, 100 Cal.App. 559, 280 P. 545. Therefore, the nonregistration of any one firearm in one’s possession constitutes a complete offense separate and distinct from the nonregistration of any other such firearm. Ebeling v. Morgan, 237 U.S. 625, 35 S.Ct. 710, 59 L.Ed. 1151; McKee v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 109 F.2d 273.
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