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. AKERMAN, Judge.
No. 6769.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 31, 1932.
W. P. Hughes, U. S. Atty., of Jacksonville, Fla.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and SIBLEY, Circuit Judges.
SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.
Paul Antinori was on June 10, 1929, sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, but his sentence was suspended, and he w;as placed on probation under the Probation Act (18. USCA §§ 724-727). On June 18„ 1931, his probation was revoked after a hearing, and he was resenteneed to a reduced term of imprisonment of twelve months. The United States appealed from the judgment in so far as it reduced the original sentence, but the jurisdiction of the District Court on revoking probation to impose a new and lesser sentence was upheld upon the words of 18 USCA § 725: “Thereupon the court may revoke the probation or the suspension of sentence, and may impose any sentence which might originally have been imposed.” United States v. Antinori (C. C. A.) 59 F.(2d) 171. The District Court duly entered the mandate of affirmance on July 18, 1932, and directed the marshal to imprison Antinori for the unexpired portion of his twelve months sentence. On the same day, however, after a showing touching Antinori’s ill health, the District Court undertook to amend the sentence of June 18, 1931, to read imprisonment for one hour only. A mandamus is sought from this court to require execution of the judgment which it had affirmed. The answer of the District Judge discloses that he is of opinion that the appeal from the judgment of June 18, 1931, kept the term of the District Court' open as respects this ease until the mandate was entered on July 18,1932, and that thereupon he had the same jurisdiction to amend the judgment as he would have had immediately after and within the term at which it was rendered, in accordance with the case of United States v. Benz, 282 U. S. 304, 51 S. Ct. 113, 75 L. Ed. 354. This view is, we. think, ’ erroneous. When probation was revoked and “such sentence imposed as might, originally have been imposed,” the provisions of the Probation Act were exhausted. The sentence then imposed was final in the) same way that all criminal sentences were before that law was passed. While within the breast of the court during the term, that term of the District Court expired long before July 18, 1932. The appeal did not extend it. On affirmance the judgment stood unalterable by the District Court. Realty Acceptance Corp. v. Montgomery, 284 U. S. 547, 52 S. Ct. 215, 76 L. Ed. 476; United States v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55, 35 S. Ct. 16, 59 L. Ed. 129. Commutation, if any, must come through the pardoning power.
It is ordered that a, copy of this opinion bo certified to the District Judge.

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