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:
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MOLINE PROPERTIES, Inc.
No. 10279.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 7, 1942.
Rehearing Denied Dee. 11, 1942.
Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key and Benjamin M. Brodsky, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., J. P. Wenchel, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Charles E. Lowery, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Douglas D. Felix, of Miami, Fla., for respondent.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and Mc-CORD, Circuit Judges.
McCORD, Circuit Judge.
The petition involves income and excess-profits taxes for the years 1935 and 1936, and a delinquency penalty for the year 1936. The facts are stated in detail by the Board of Tax Appeals in its reported opinion, Moline Properties, Inc., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 45 B.T.A. 647.
The respondent, Moline Properties, Inc., was organized in 1928, and at all times Uly O. Thompson has been its president and sole stockholder, with the exception of holders of qualifying shares. The corporation was organized at the suggestion of Thompson’s creditors as a means of protecting investments and saving his equity in certain parcels of' real estate located in Florida; the mortgagee having agreed to advance further funds on condition that the corporation should be organized. The property was conveyed by Thompson to the corporation, and the stock issued to him was pledged with the mortgagee and placed in a voting trust. On July 29, 1933, the corporation satisfied the two outstanding mortgages with funds secured from a new mortgage loan. Control of the corporation was returned to Thompson in 1933.
Moline Properties, Inc., did not keep books of account or maintain a bank account. It owned no assets other than the real estate. In 1934 it leased a portion of its properties for use as a parking lot and received $1,000 as rental. Thompson owned other extensive real property holdings in Miami, Florida, title to all of which was in his name individually.
The real property held by Moline Properties, Inc., was sold in three separate parcels, one each in the years 1934, 1935, and 1936. The corporation transacted no further business after sale of the last parcel of property in 1936. The Board of Tax Appeals sustained the taxpayer’s contentions and held that the corporation functioned merely as an agent for Thompson; that the corporate existence must be disregarded in taxing the gains from the sales of the property of the corporation; and that, treating Moline Properties, Inc., as a corporation without substance, Thompson was entitled to report the proceeds from the sales as his individual income. By timely petition for review the Commissioner of Internal Revenue questions the correctness of the Board’s decision.
The Board of Tax Appeals erred in its decision. Ordinarily a corporation and its stockholders are for purposes of taxation held to be separate entities, and the rule is not changed by the mere fact that one person owns all or substantially all of the stock of the corporation. Planters’ Cotton Oil Co. v. Hopkins, 5 Cir., 53 F.2d 825; Watson v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 124 F.2d 437. In tax matters “the tendency is not to ignore the corporate entity unless it be used to defraud the law, but rather, when natural persons are using corporate forms to do their business, they and their corporations are held to the literal consequences.” Bancker v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 76 F.2d 1, 2. In the case at bar Thompson, for reasons satisfactory to himself and to his creditors, elected to employ a corporation in the handling of certain parcels of his real estate. Having chosen the corporate form to conduct these affairs, both Thompson and his corporation must accept the tax disadvantages of the plan; and they may not now, in order to escape corporate taxes, be heard to disavow the corporate existence and allege that the respondent was merely a “dummy” corporation. Higgins v. Smith, 308 U.S. 473, 477, 60 S.Ct. 355, 84 L.Ed. 406; Interstate Transit Lines v. Commissioner, 8 Cir., 130 F.2d 136.
The gains from the sales of the properties of the corporation were taxable to the respondent. Accordingly, the petition is granted, and the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is reversed with directions to enter decision for the Commissioner.

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