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:
Peter BOGART and June Bogart, Appellants, v. PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellee.
No. 22089.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
March 17, 1969.
Rehearing Denied April 25, 1969.
Sam Bubriek, Los Angeles, Cal., for Peter D. Bogart & June Bogart.
Evelle J. Younger, Dist. Atty., Robert J. Lord, Asst. Dist. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES, DUNIWAY and ELY, Circuit Judges.
BARNES, Circuit Judge:
This appeal was set for oral argument on March 4, 1969. At that time, upon oral motion made by counsel for appellants to be relieved as counsel for appellants, and upon consent expressed in open court by each appellant that the motion be granted, the motion was granted. Appellants thereupon each requested in open court that the appeal be submitted on the brief on file (no brief had been filed by appellee). It was so ordered.
This matter has been before this court previously. For a recital of the complicated facts through 1965, see our opinion appearing at 355 F.2d 377 (1966), particularly pages 378 to 380. In that case we concluded: “The order of the district court remanding the cause to the state court is affirmed.” The date of that opinion was January 13, 1966. A petition for rehearing was denied by this court on February 21, 1966. A petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States, and we stayed our mandate. The petition for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court on October 10, 1966, 385 U.S. 888, 87 S.Ct. 132, 17 L.Ed.2d 117, and a rehearing denied by that same Court on November 21, 1966, 385 U.S. 964, 87 S.Ct. 400, 17 L.Ed.2d 310.
Our judgment (now mandate) was issued on January 16, 1967, and “filed and spread and entered” in the district court on February 6, 1967. As of that date, the matter (No. 20,050 in this court and No. 34749 in the district court) was final, and the appellants’ cause of action was in the state court, and not in the federal courts. All previously issued stays had expired by their own terms.
On February 6, 1967, appellants “lodged” with the district court two documents, each entitled “FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF PROSECUTION BY DEFENDANTS DENIED CIVIL RIGHTS. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1U3, 1U6.” (T.R. 39, et seq.)
On that same date, the Hon. Charles H. Carr entered an order with respect to the “lodged” papers (1) denying consideration of the amended removal petitions, and (2) denying motions to appoint counsel for alleged indigent appellants.
On February 13, 1967, appellants lodged, and on February 15, 1967, filed, a notice of appeal from (1) and (2), supra, and (3) “from all orders and final judgments made on said February 6, 1967 in said cause.” The only order made on that day other than (1) and (2), supra, was that the mandate of this court of appeals be spread. (R.T. 3-9.)
The two orders denying appellants’ motions were premised on the fact that the trial court’s previous order of March 31, 1965, remanding appellants’ cases to the California Superior Court, had been affirmed by this court; his ruling was thus the law of the case, and res adjudicata (R.T. 9).
We hold the district court was correct. At the time of the original order of transfer appellants made no offer or effort to amend their petitions. Their untimely attempts, made almost two. years later, to amend came too late, for there was then nothing before the district court to amend.
Appellants ask this court in their brief filed August 14, 1968, “to extend their notice of appeal to an order made by Judge Carr entered on March 13, 1967 denying them leave to appeal in forma pauperis.” No appeal having been taken from this order, we are without jurisdiction to entertain any such appeal, or “to extend” the earlier and timely notice of appeal. Fed.R.App.P., Rule 26(b); Rule 2. 222 East Chestnut St. Corp. v. Lakefront, 256 F.2d 513 (7th Cir.) cert. den. 358 U.S. 907, 79 S.Ct. 232, 3 L.Ed.2d 228 (1958); Britton v. Dowell, Inc., 243 F.2d 434 (10th Cir. 1957); Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Foley, 237 F.2d 164 (9th Cir.1956); Food Handlers Local No. 425, v. Pluss Poultry, Inc., 23 F.R.D. 109 (W.D.Ark. 1958); Jones v. Kennedy, 2 F.R.D. 357 (D.D.C.1942).
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