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:
WHITE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (two cases).
No. 12338.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 24, 1949.
Leroy G. Denman, Jr., and Leroy G. Denman, both of San Antonio, Tex., for petitioners.
hielen Goodner, Ellis N. Slack, Lee A. Jackson, and L. W. Post, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Theron L. Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Chas. Oliphant, Chief Counsel, and J. W. Smith, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
Were the profits in this case ordinary income or capital gains? This is the question that was before the Tax Court, which sustained the Commissioner’s determination that the profits realized were derived in the ordinary course of business, and were not capital gains under Section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code,'26 U.S.C.A. § H7.
The taxpayers are husband and wife, residents of San Antonio, Texas, and filed separate tax returns on their community income. Since the husband managed all the business from which the income was derived, he will be referred to as the taxpayer. The latter is a successful business man, aged 69, who had taught school, owned a dairy, and attempted to practice law, before going into the paving business on an extensive scale. As a by-product of his paving operations, he acquired much real estate in San Antonio by the foreclosure of paving liens.
Being a large operator with various branch businesses, he established, pri- or to 1942, the R. L. White Company,which was not incorporated and was solely owned by him (except as to his wife’s community interest) until 1943, when a three-twelfth’s interest therein was given to his children. During all of 1943 and 1944, the taxpayer owned nine-twelfths of this company, a partnership, and his three children owned the remaining three-twelfths. In the income-tax returns of said company for 1943 and 1944, both of which were signed by R. L. White, the business of the company was stated to be “real estate, ranching, and investments.” This was an admission against interest by the taxpayer, who managed the partnership and was an experienced business man. In appraising this evidence, the Tax Court stated in its opinion that surely this astute business man, with a legal education, “knew in what business his firm was engaged.”
We are not convinced that the Tax Court erred in holding that the property in question was held by petitioners primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of their trade or business, and that profits therefrom constituted ordinary income, not capital gains. We are impressed with the reasoning "by the Tax Court on the facts underlying the' findings in this case and in Farley v. Commissioner, 7 T. C. 198. Although different results were reached in the two cases, the decision in each was controlled by the same principles of law, and the difference in the results was caused by factual distinctions; in both the question was whether or not the lots were held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business. Sec. 117 (a) (1), I.R.C., 26 U.S.C.A. § 117(a) (1).
In 1942, in the instant case, the taxpayer made cash sales of over 250 lots, which were covered by 47 different transactions; in 1943, 87 lots covered by six different transactions; and in 1944, three lots covered by three different transactions. In addition to cash sales in these years, there were a number of installment sales from which the total profits collected, including those made in previous years and in 1944, were $27,423.86. The number and continuity of sales tend to support the findings below; but these things in themselves are not always decisive; other facts must be taken into consideration as in Farley v. Commissioner, supra, where a-different result was reached and where in the Tax Court said, 7 T.C. at -page 202: “Not only are there absent here the elements of development and sales activities which distinguish this case from those cited above, but there are other circumstances which, in our opinion, explain the frequency and continuity of sales here involved in terms other than those connotating business activity.” There the sales in question appear to have been essentially in the nature of a gradual and passive liquidation, but the court points out that the so-called liquidation test has been rejected in cases where the manner of conducting the alleged liquidation was such as to constitute a trade or business.
The gist of the court’s holding in the Farley case, in which we concur, was that where the liquidation of an asset is accompanied by extensive development and sales activity, the mere fact of liquidation does not preclude the existence of a trade or business; but, where the elements of development and sales activity are absent, the fact of liquidation may not be disregarded. In that case the profit realized from the sale of lots was due to appreciation in value of the property that had gradually accrued during the years of the taxpayer’s ownership. The same conditions, which increased its value for residential purposes, diminished its value as an asset in the taxpayer’s nursery business. When satisfactory offers were made, the owner sold with a minimum of business activity. The holding was that the profits were taxable as capital gains.
On the contrary, in the instant case, the Tax Court found as an ultimate fact that the property in question was held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. That finding- is fully sustained by the evidence, and we think it is correct. The number of lots sold, the profits realized, the manner of -conducting the business, the fact that a real estate dealer’s license was paid, the admissions in the income-tax returns, and other facts and circumstances in evidence, leave no basis for disturbing the decision -of the Tax Court. Cf. Richards v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 81 F.2d 369, 370, 106 A.L.R. 249; Snell v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 97 F.2d 891; Commissioner v. Boeing, 9 Cir., 106 F.2d 305, 309; Greene v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 141 F.2d 645, certiorari denied, 323 U.S. 717, 65 S.Ct. 45, 89 L.Ed. 577.
Affirmed.

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: 0