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:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. UNITED CONST. WORKERS et al.
No. 6433.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit
Argued June 24, 1952.
Decided July 18, 1952.
Writ of Certiorari Denied Nov. 10,1952.
See 73 S.Ct. 170.
Thomas McDermott, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. (George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, and Bernard Dunau, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Hillis Townsend and M. E. Boiarsky, Charleston, W. Va., for respondents.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SO-PER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board directing respondents to cease and desist from unfair labor practices and post notices of intention to comply with the order. The unfair labor practices consisted in interfering with employees of timbermen who were delivering mine timbers to the Carbon Coal Company, a coal mining company which shipped large quantities of coal in interstate commerce. There was.ample evidence to support the finding of the Board that respondents picketed the premises of the coal company for the purpose (1) of compelling that company to cease doing business with timbermen who would not join respondent’s union or the association which had a closed shop contract with the union, (2) of compelling the timbermen to join the union and the association and (3) of compelling the timbermen to recognize the union as the representative of their employees. The Board held that this conduct was violative of 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b)(4)(A) and (B). The Board found also, upon ample evidence, that respondents had violated section 8(b) (1)(A) of the'act by coercion exercised on one Bryant, an employee of one of the timbermen. The facts are set forth in the Board’s ordir and the intermediate report of the Trial Examiner and need not be repeated here. They fully sustain the Board’s order. It is argued that the order is too broad; but in view of the wide background of violence and intimidation which the record discloses and the program of which it was a part, we think that this contention is without merit. Without merit also is the contention that the unfair labor practices do not affect commerce because the furnishing of timbers is an intrastate matter. The Carbon Coal Company in the mining and shipping of coal was engaged in interstate commerce on a large scale; and this commerce was unquestionably affected by the unfair labor practices here involved. See N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 683-685, 71 S.Ct. 943, 95 L.Ed. 1284. The order will be enforced.
Order enforced.

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