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:
TOMANENG v. REEVES.
No. 10973.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 14, 1950.
J. Paul McNamara, and Walter J. Mackey, Columbus, Ohio (Thomas M. Quinn, Indianapolis, Ind., on the brief), for appellant.
Wm. E. Knepper, and H. S. Kerr, Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.
Before ALLEN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the decedent effected a change of beneficiary in accordance with the terms of a policy of life insurance which provides that the insured “shall have full power * * to designate a new beneficiary * * * by filing at the Home Office a written designation of beneficiary, which shall in no case be effective until the date upon which it is so filed.” The insurance company filed a bill of interpleader, joining the decedent’s wife and sister as defendants.
The facts are in the main stipulated,, and are,as follows: On January 7, 1946, the decedent, who was insured in The Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company under a policy in which his wife, Margaret Oyler Reeves, was named beneficiary, wrote the agent of-the company at Fort Wayne, Indiana, a letter, the pertinent part of which reads: “Marital difficulties since my return ■has made it necessary to again change the beneficiary of my policy. I therefore request that the usual procedure be instituted making the present beneficiary Miss Mary Elizabeth Reeves — (my Sister) the recipient in the event anything happens to me.”
On two previous occasions the decedent had changed the beneficiary in this same policy by the execution of “Change of Beneficiary” forms which he transmitted to the insurance company. After forwarding decedent’s letter of January 7, 1946, to the company’s home office, the agent wrote decedent that he was “ordering the -beneficiary forms for change to your sister, as per your request.” On January 16, 1946, the agent’s secretary wrote decedent enclosing a 'beneficiary form “recently requested,” and instructed decedent: “If this is in accordance with your wishes please sign both copies as indicated, having your signature witnessed, and -return -both to us. After certification at the Home Office the duplicate will be sent to you to be attached to the policy.” The forms were never signed by decedent and were retained in his possession until his death by accident on April 11, 1946.
Appellant contends that the letter of January 7, 1946, automatically constitutes the designation required under the policy and that its forwarding to the Home Office was the filing required. The District Court held that decedent’s wife was still the duly designated beneficiary of the policy at the time of decedent’s death and rendered judgment in her favor.
Under Ohio law, controlling here, where the insured has the unconditional right to change the beneficiary, a change may be effected even if the provisions of the policy setting forth the manner of effecting the change are not complied with exactly. Atkinson v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 114 Ohio St. 109, 150 N.E. 748.
But it must appear (1) that the insured had determined to change the beneficiary and (2) that he had done everything to the ■best of his ability to effect the change. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Secoy, D.C., 72 F.Supp. 83; Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Macbrair, 66 Ohio App. 144, 31 N.E.2d 172; Glen v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 73 Ohio App. 452, 56 N.E.2d 951.
Tested by these rules, the judgment of the District Court must be affirmed. Decedent’s letter of January 7, 1946, did not constitute an unequivocal designation of change of beneficiary. It merely embodied a request to institute the usual procedure for change of 'beneficiary, with which the decedent was familiar, namely, the sending and -receipt of the beneficiary forms, their execution, and their filing in the home office. The decedent was an educated man, an assistant professor of medicine at Ohio State University, and no doubt understood the meaning of the words he used when he deliberately requested the agent to institute “the usual procedure.” The forms were sent, received, but never executed, and the contemplated change was not effected. Decedent failed to do all that he could to effectuate the change.
Appellant contends that the judgment of the District Court is contrary to the holding of this court in Schwerdtfeger v. American United Life Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 165 F.2d 928. There, however, the insured had signed a formal insurance company application designating his daughters as beneficiaries. The evidence of the insured’s determination to make the change was complete. Fie did the exact thing that the decedent here failed to do.
Judgment 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: 0