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:
SILVERMAN et al. v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.
No. 5006.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
July 18, 1933.
Moorhead & Marshall, of Beaver, Pa., and M. M. Demond and Sachs & Caplan, all of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Charles H. Sachs, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Forrest G. Moorhead, of Beaver, Pa., of counsel), for appellants.
Wm. H. Eckert, of Pittsburgh, Pa., Louis H. Cooke, of New York City, William J. Kyle, Jr., and Smith, Buchanan, Scott & Gordon, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
The pertinent, decisive facts in this case are as follows: Plaintiffs’ decedent had a life insurance policy of defendant dated Juno 7, 19-18. The premium thereon fell due November 22, 1930. Within the thirty-day leeway decedent’s son sent defendant his own check. In his letter he said: “I am mailing a check of $107.30 for policy #0305174 — S5 as my father is now in Chicago and I am a little short of cash at this time. Please send in papers to make a loan to take care of this premium.” When placed in the bank for collection, the son’s check was dishonored, whereupon the defendant, on January 8, 1931, wrote the decedent advising him that the cheek “has been returned by the bank not honored. Your policy has therefore been lapsed on the hooks of the Company. We regret that it is therefore necessary to enclose said cheek herewith, which we now do, and ask you to be good enough to return the renewal receipt given at the time the Company received said check. The Company urges you on receipt of this letter to apply for the reinstatement of the policy on the enclosed form, and return it to me at once with $107.99. If the evidence of insurability is found to he satisfactory, the Company will reinstate the policy.” To this letter the decedent made no reply. Ho died on January 25, 1931. We here note that at the trial the judge submitted the question whether defendant accepted the cheek as payment or as a payment conditioned on the check being honored, and on that question the jury found for defendant. We therefore have a case of nonpayment of premium.
It is contended that because the policy then had a loan value of $416 and a surrender value of $488, the company should have applied these values to the payment of the premium. But, unfortunately for this contention, the insured took no step which warranted the company so to do, and, unless he took such step, the defendant had no right to use the surrender value of the policy to pay the overdue premium. He was told the policy had lapsed — a position ho accepted — and, though invited to reinstate, he did not do so. The policy provided: “This contract is made in consideration of the payment in advance of the sum of $113.32, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, constituting the first premium and maintaining this Policy to the Twenty-second day of November Nineteen Hundred and eighteen, and of a like sum on said date and every Six calendar months thereafter during the life of the insured.” In view of this provision and the failure of the decedent to pay the premium or to reinstate his policy, the company, on paying the surrender value of the policy, which it did, was released from all further liability, and the entry of judgment in its favor involved no error.
We accordingly affirm.

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