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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Razmik Levon DEKERMENJIAN, Appellant.
No. 74-2452.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 23, 1974.
Michael D. Nasatir, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.
Ronald Muntean, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before ELY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and TURRENTINE, District Judge.
Honorable Howard B. Turrentine, United States District Judge, San Diego, California, sitting by designation.
OPINION
ELY, Circuit Judge:
Dekermenjian, an alien, was convicted of having illegally reentered the United States after having previously been deported. 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Urging reversal Dekermenjian advances four arguments. The most significant pertains to his claim that his original deportation Order was invalid, thus raising the issue as to whether such an Order can be attacked collaterally in the defense of a charge of having violated 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The Supreme Court has expressly reserved a resolution of this issue. See United States v. Spector, 343 U.S. 169, 72 S.Ct. 591, 96 L.Ed. 863, reh. denied 343 U.S. 951, 72 S.Ct. 1040, 96 L.Ed. 1353 (1952). Decisions of certain Courts of Appeals are in conflict. The Fifth and Tenth Circuits have held that an alien may not, in a criminal action such as here, attack the validity of a prior deportation Order that is regular on its face. United States v. GonzalezParra, 438 F.2d 694 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 402 U.S. 1010, 91 S.Ct. 2196, 29 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971); Arriaga-Ramirez v. United States, 325 F.2d 857 (10th Cir. 1963). The Courts of Appeals for the Third and Seventh Circuits disagree, reading the word “deported” in 8 U.S.C. § 1326 as meaning “deported according to law.” United States v. Bowles, 331 F.2d 742, 749 (3d Cir. 1964); United States v. Heikkinen, 240 F.2d 94, 99 (7th Cir. 1957), rev’d on other grounds, 355 U.S. 273, 78 S.Ct. 299, 2 L.Ed.2d 264 (1958); United States v. Heikkinen, 221 F.2d 890, 892 (7th Cir. 1955).
The pertinent law in our Circuit appears unclear. In United States v. Palmer, 458 F.2d 663 (9th Cir. 1972), we held that a collateral attack-upon a deportation Order had no merit, but we failed to discuss the basic question of whether the alien had a right to mount a collateral attack. Cf. Pena-Cabanillas v. United States, 394 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1968), wherein, at 789, we cited the Third Circuit’s Bowles opinion, supra, which, as we have above mentioned, upholds such a right. Cf. United States v. Osuna-Picos, 443 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam), in which, again without discussing the propriety of a collateral attack, we reversed a § 1326 conviction because the underlying deportation order had been based on an Attorney General’s decision that our Court had overruled.
While we have thought it desirable to emphasize the conflict and to cite the most relevant authority, we have at the same time concluded that it is unnecessary, in the circumstances of -this particular case, to issue a definitive ruling on the principle question above discussed. Even should we adopt the rule of the Third and Seventh Circuits, the holding would be of no benefit to Dekermenjian. We find no irregularity in the deportation Order that Dekermenjian claimed to be invalid. It is contended that certain records and memoranda of the Immigration and Naturalization Service were improperly received as evidence in the trial from which this appeal is taken. The claim has no merit, since the documents clearly constituted admissible evidence under the Business Records Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1732. It is not necessary, as Dekermenjian argues, that such records should be admissible only if there is a statutory requirement that the Service retain specific types of records. The fact that such records were regularly and routinely kept suffices.
The alien complains that the deportation hearing was held in his absence. This is true, but the record discloses that both he and his representative had been kept fully aware of the deportation proceedings and had been given correct information as to the date of the deportation hearing. When one voluntarily chooses not to attend a deportation hearing which may affect him adversely, he is hardly in a position to complain that an Order made pursuant to the hearing is invalid because of his absence.
Finally, it is argued that the deportation Order in question was invalidated because of a thirteen-month delay in its execution. This argument is undermined by Spector v. Landon, 209 F.2d 481 (9th Cir. 1954).
Affirmed.
. Neither party cites 28 U.S.C. § 1733, but it appears that the documents would have been properly admissible under that statute also.

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