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:
SLYDER v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
No. 10716.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 9, 1950.
Decided Feb. 1, 1951.
Godfrey L. Munter, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Harry L. Walker, Asst. Corporation Counsel, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Vernon E. West, Corporation Counsel, Chester H. Gray, Principal Asst. Corporation Counsel, and George F. Lynch, Asst. Corporation Counsel, all of Washington D. C., were on the brief, for respondent.
Before EDGERTON, PROCTOR, and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.
EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner, who was ill, orally agreed with Josephine Mathy that if she would give up her boarding-house business and take care of him he would give her the money to buy a house, title would be taken in her name, and when either died the house would belong to the other. The parties carried out their agreement. He paid for a house and title was taken in her name. She willed him her residuary estate, including the house, and cared for him until she died. He petitions for review of a ruling of the Board of Tax Appeals ■for the District of Columbia that the transfer of the house is taxable under D.C.Code (1940) § 47-1601 (a), 50 Stat. 683, which taxes all property “transferred from any person who may die seized or possessed thereof, either by will or by law, or by right of survivorship * *
Petitioner contends that in equity and good conscience he inherited nothing that was not already his and therefore no tax is due. But the fact is that he had no legal or equitable right to dispose of the house during the lifetime of Josephine Mathy. In other words, while she lived she had not only legal title but also a beneficial interest. We need not consider whether she had the whole beneficial interest or whether petitioner had a share in it. In either case, when she died he acquired not only her legal title but her beneficial interest. It is immaterial whether he is thought to have acquired it by her will or by the right of survivorship that the oral agreement sought to create, for the tax law expressly covers transfers “by will * * * or by right of survivor-ship”. Accordingly there is no occasion to consider whether the purchase of the house, and the oral agreement, created a trust in petitioner’s favor. Cf. D.C. Code (1940) § 12-303, 31 Stat. 1367-1368.
Statutes sometimes exempt from taxation transfers by will when they are made pursuant to contract, but Congress chose not to exempt such transfers. The choice appears to have been deliberate. In the same sentence by which Congress taxed all transfers from a decedent “by will or by law, or by right of survivorship”, it proceeded to exempt from taxation transfers by deed intended to take effect after the death of the decedent “in cases of a bona fide purchase for full consideration in money or money’s worth”. Cf. In re Howell’s Estate, 255 N.Y. 211, 174 N.E. 457; Jacob v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 9 B.T.A. 636, affirmed 8 Cir., 34 F.2d 233. We need not decide whether this exemption would have covered a deed from Josephine to the petitioner No deed was made. As the Board said in effect, the tax- law applies to what was done, not what might have been done.
No question regarding the amount of the tax is before us, for none was raised before the Board or in petitioner’s brief-
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: 1