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:
YUENGLING v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 5246.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
March 20, 1934.
John J. Sullivan, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Pat Malloy, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Walter L. Barlow and John H. McEvers, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before WOOLLEY, DAYIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
DAVIS, Circuit Judge.
This petition involves the income tax liability of Frank D. Yuengling for the year 1928.
He executed an irrevocable trust agreement. It provided that the trustee would use the income of the res to pay premiums on policies of insurance upon the petitioner’s life and designated his wife and children as the beneficiaries ox the trust.
The question here is whether or not that portion of the income of the res which was applied to the payment of premiums on the insurance policies on the petitioner’s life for his family’s benefit is taxable to him. The facts here are substantially the same as those considered by the Supreme Court when it decided this question in Burnet v. Wells, 289 U. S. 670, 53 S. Ct. 761, 77 L. Ed. 1439. Accordingly, upon the authority of that case, we hold that sueh income is taxable to the petitioner.
The second question is determined also by the broad principle that income may include not only ownership but rights or privileges that are merely indicia of ownership. Certain corporations, in which the petitioner owned all 'the capital stock, paid premiums on policies of insurance on the life of the petitioner. The proceeds of the policies were to be paid to the petitioner’s wife and children. The corporations'did not benefit from the policies.
These facts are sufficient to sustain the determination of the Board of Tax Appeals that the petitioner received the benefit of the payments, and they were income to him.
It is the settled administrative practice to regard premiums paid by a corporation on an individual insurance policy on the life of an officer as income to the officer if he is permitted to designate the beneficiary and if the corporation is not directly or indirectly benefited thereby. George M. Adams, 18 B. T. A. 381; N. Boring Danforth, 18 B. T. A. 1221 The payment of sueh premiums by the corporation must be presumed as compensation for services, rather than gifts as the petitioner contends, since a corporation cannot lawfully give away its assets. Noel v. Parrott, 15 F.(2d) 669, 671 (C. C. A. 4), certiorari denied, 273 U. S. 754, 47 S. Ct. 457, 71 L. Ed. 875.
The order of redetermination of the Board of Tax Appeals is 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