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:
UNITED STATES v. 716 CASES, MORE OR LESS, ETC., DEL COMIDA BRAND TOMATOES et al.
No. 3949.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 5, 1950.
John T. Grigsby, Washington, D. C. (Alexander M. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Cleon A. Summers, United States Attorney and John W. Crawford, Assistant United States Attorney, Muskogee, Okl., were with him on the brief; Vincent A. Kleinfeld and Edward K. Adel-sheim, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
No appearance or brief for appellee.
Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
MURRAH, Circuit Judge.
Pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1040 et seq., 21 U.S.C.A. § 334(a), a libel of information was filed by the United States for the seizure and condemnation of 716 cases of canned food labeled in part “Del Comida Brand Tomatoes Contents 1 Lb. 3 Oz”. The libel alleged that the food was adulterated within the meaning of 21 U.S.C.A. § 342(b) (2) in that a product containing water had been substituted wholly or in part for canned tomatoes; and that the product was also misbranded within the meaning of 21 U.S.C.A. § 343(g) (1) in that it failed to conform to the definition and standard of canned tomatoes as prescribed by Regulations 53.41(a) (1) promulgated by the Federal Security Administrator pursuant to 21 U.S.C.A. § 341. In their answer, as claimants, Alfred Whit-ten and Harold Whitten, doing business as Whitten Brothers Canning Company, Paris, Texas, admitted the allegations of adulteration and misbranding, but requested permission to relabel the food on the ground that it was wholesome and fit for human consumption, and that reprocessing the product into tomato puree, catsup or any other similar product would be extremely expensive.
Upon the pleadings, and after a pretrial hearing, the trial court found that the article, although misbranded and adulterated, was not adulterated within the meaning of 21 U.S.C.A. § 342(b) (2). It accordingly provided in the decree of condemnation that the article be released to the claimant for the purpose of truthful labeling. The Government has appealed from that portion of the decree which directed that the article be released to the claimant for relabeling.
Section 334(d) of the Act provides that the court may, under prescribed conditions, direct that the condemned article be delivered to the owner thereof to be destroyed or brought into compliance with the provisions of the Act under the supervision of an officer or employee. But nothing in this section or the Act authorizes the court to-permit the introduction in interstate commerce of any article of food that is adulterated, though truthfully labeled.
Section 342(b) (2) provides that “A food shall be deemed to be adulterated * * * if any substance has been substituted wholly or in part therefor”. The Government contends here that because of the added or substituted water, the product is adulterated and cannot therefore be introduced in interstate commerce, though truthfully labeled.
21 U.S.C.A. § 341 provides that “Whenever in the judgment of the Administrator such action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers, he shall promulgate regulations fixing and establishing for any food, under its common or usual name so far as practicable, a reasonable definition and standard of identity, a reasonable standard of quality, and/or reasonable standards of fill of container * * * ”. It is conceded that because of the addition of water, the article falls below the standard of canned tomatoes prescribed by Section 53.41(a) (1) of regulations promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to 21 U.S.C.A. § 341, Sec. 401 of the Act. But, it is argued by the claimants, that since the food is wholesome and fit for numan consumption, it could be sold under correct labeling and the purchaser would therefore not be misled. The Government counters with the proposition that once an article has been condemned as adulterated, its contraband character cannot be cured by a truthful statement of the manner in which it is adulterated, and the fact that it is fit for human consumption is immaterial.
The test of adulteration within the meaning of the Act does not turn upon whether the article is non-in ju'rious and fit for human consumption. ' The Act was not intended to be confined to misbranding and the addition of adulterated substances deleterious to the health of consumers. It provides protection to the consumer from “economic adulteration” by which less exr pensive ingredients are substituted, or the proportion of more expensive ingredients are diminished so as to make the commonly identified article inferior to that which, the consumer would expect to receive when purchasing it, although not in itself deleterious. Federal Security Adm’r v. Quaker Oats Co., 318 U.S. 218, 63 S.Ct. 589, 87 L.Ed. 724, 158 A.L.R. 832; United States v. 36 Drums of Pop’n Oil, 5 Cir., 164 F.2d 250; United States v. 2 Bags, etc., 6 Cir., 147 F.2d 123.
The term “canned tomatoes” is certainly a common or usual name for a standard article, and concededly by the addition of the water, the article under seizure here falls below the standard of quality of canned tomatoes provided in Section 53.41 of regulations promulgated by the Federal Security Agency; and is adulterated in that a substance has been substituted wholly or in part .therefor. The use of a substandard label does not raise the standard of identity to comply with the Act and regulations.
It thus becomes unnecessary to consider whether the article was also misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(g) of the Act, 21 U.S.C.A. 343(g) (1). The judgment is reversed.

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