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:
SANFORD, Warden, v. RUNYON.
No. 10613.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 4, 1943.
M. Neil Andrews, U. S. Atty., and Harvey H. Tisinger, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
No appearance was entered for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON and WALLER, Circuit Judges, and COX, District Judge.
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.
Appellee, taken op parole warrant, filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The district judge, stating, “The record shows that petitioner both prior to the alleged violation of his parole and also before the issuance of the parole warrant had completed the term specified in his sentence, less such ‘good time allowance’ ”, discharged him. The warden is here insisting that the judgment below was based on the erroneous finding that petitioner had prior to the alleged violation of his parole completed his “short” term, that is, his maximum term as reduced for good time, and, therefore, may not stand. We agree.
Petitioner was on November 23, 1928, sentenced to a term of seven years. Without “good time”, the sentence would thus expire November 23, 1935. Allowing the maximum good time possible to be earned, his short or “gopd time” term would expire February 12, 1934. He was paroled on May 29, 1931. On August 11, 1933, six months before the end of his “short” term, he violated the terms of his parole and parole warrant issued for his arrest on March 16, 1934, some eighteen months before expiration e>f his full term. He remained at large as a fugitive from justice until he was arrested for another offense for which he was sentenced on May-12, 1937, for a term of five years in the penitentiary. Conditionally released from this sentence on September 13, 1940, he was at that time taken into custody under the parole violator warrant and committed to serve the remaining portion of his unexpired term of seven years. Contending that he was being illegally held because with good time he had completed his “short” term February 12, 1934, and the board had no jurisdiction after that date to revoke the parole for violations theretofore committed, he sought release on habeas corpus.
The warden, defending, pointed out that the breach of parole within the short term had deprived him of his good time allowance and made him subject to arrest at any time within the term of his original sentence and to be brought back to serve the full time. Through some confusion, the source of which is not apparent, the district judge fell into the error of finding as a fact that petitioner had, prior to the violation of his parole, completed his short term, and misconceiving the warden’s defense, as based on 18 U.S.C.A. § 716b, effective June 29, 1932, rejected the defense and discharged the prisoner. The law is too well settled to require much citation of authority that breach of parole forfeits good time and lays the prisoner liable to arrest and service of the full sentence. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further and not inconsistent proceedings.
Platek v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 173; United States ex rel. Anderson v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 76 F.2d 375; Henratty v. Zerbst, D.C., 9 F.Supp. 230; Kidwell v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 359, 58 S.Ct. 872, 82 L.Ed. 1399, 116 A.L.R. 808; Morgan v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 78 F.2d 171.

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: 1