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:
JOHN J. GRIER CO., a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14341.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Feb. 17, 1964.
Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard J. Heiman, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, 111., Lee A. Jackson, Joseph Eovner, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Frank E. McDonald, U. S. Atty., for appellant.
Daniel D. Glasser, Chicago, 111., for appellee.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and ENOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
ENOCH, Circuit Judge.
The government has appealed from a judgment of the United States District Court in favor of the taxpayer, plaintiffappellee, John J. Grier Co. (hereinafter called “Grier”). The District Court held (in an opinion published at 216 F.Supp. 928) that the sale in 1959 by Grier of all the capital stock of its subsidiary Evergreen Supper Club, Inc. was the sale of a non-capital asset, resulting in an ordinary loss deduction. The government’s view is that the loss resulted from the sale of a capital asset and as a capital loss is deductible only to the extent of Grier’s capital gains.
The facts were all stipulated. Since 1907, Grier has been operating exclusively restaurants and other eating establishments, which until 1956 were all located in or adjacent to railroad stations. Beginning in 1953, Grier’s revenue and profits declined steadily with the reduced volume of railroad activity. Numerous business opportunities all related to restaurants or the feeding industry, but not connected with railroad operations, were explored. Between 1955 and 1959 Grier investigated some 75 restaurants and eating houses available for sale in various areas. Grier bought about ten of these.
In February 1956, Grier began negotiations for purchase of the Evergreen Supper Club in Palatine, Illinois. These negotiations were substantially concluded with the purported owner, Paul A. Peterson, when, for the first time, Grier learned that the Club was owned by the Evergreen Supper Club, Inc., a corporation of which Mr. Peterson was the sole stockholder. The restaurant premises were leased to the corporation, and the lessor was likely to object to any assignment of the lease, dated September 15, 1952, which ran for 7% years with an option to renew for 2% years more at the same rental. The lease prohibited sublease, assignment or transfer of the leasehold interest by operation of law without the prior written consent of the lessor.
It is agreed that Grier could reasonably have believed that either a merger between Evergreen and Grier or liquidation of Evergreen and assignment of its leasehold interest to Grier might have required prior written consent of the lessor, which Grier had reason to believe-might be obtained with difficulty, if at all. Mr. Peterson’s attorney, Robert CKeil, suggested the sale in the form of a sale of all the capital stock in order to' avoid any difficulty about assignment of the lease.
Grier, in the interest of its own survival, negotiated to purchase the assets of a restaurant, and only after negotiations were nearly completed, found that to purchase those assets, it was necessary to take the stock of the paper corporation of which Mr. Peterson was the sole-owner.
The government does not contest Grier’s assertion that Grier and Mr. Peterson had agreed on a puchase price of $89,982.64 for the assets before he revealed the existence of the corporation,, and that the price paid for the stock was-identical.
Grier integrated the new restaurant with its own business, changing file-name to “Grier Supper Club”; appointing its vice president, W. C. Darnell,. Jr., to operate the club; paying directly all payroll, trade accounts, and miscellaneous expenses of the Club; including the Club employees in Grier’s profit-sharing and hospitalization plans. Gross receipts were deposited regularly in the Club’s separate accounts and Evergreen Corporation filed separate federal income tax returns, but at periodic intervals funds from those accounts were transferred to Grier’s general account.
On its books of account, Grier carried the cost of its purchase of the-stock as “investment, Grier’s Supper Club.” As the District Court noted, this fact does not conclusively characterize the stock for tax purposes as a capital asset. Smith & Welton v. United States, E.D.Va., 1958, 164 F.Supp. 605, 608.
In 1959, Grier sold the Evergreen stock to the lessor for $14,209.12, and in its 1959 federal income tax return, Grier claimed as an ordinary loss deduction the difference between what it paid for the stock and the proceeds of the sale, carrying back the loss to 1956. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the loss arose from the sale of a capital asset, disallowed the carryback, and assessed a deficiency. Grier paid the assessment, made timely claim for refund and initiated its ease in the District Court when refund was denied.
Corporate stock is not invariably classified as a capital asset. To ascertain whether stock is bought and kept not for investment purposes, but only as an incident to the conduct of the taxpayer’s business, all the surrounding circumstances must be considered. The substance, as distinguished from the form, of the taxpayer’s actions determines whether the sale of the stock results in ordinary gain or loss in this particular case. Gulftex Drug Co. (1957), 29 T.C. 118, 121, affd. 5 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 238; and Smith & Welton, Inc. v. United States, supra.
The Evergreen stock had value only to someone who wished to operate the Club. Grier bought the stock and retained it only to secure the assets as an incident to conduct of its restaurant business and not for investment. There was good reason to continue the corporation in form to safeguard the lease. The District Judge found no material variance in Grier’s operation of the restaurant in its corporate form from the manner in which Grier would otherwise have operated it.
The government sees distinguishing factors in the cases on which the District Court and Grier rely. Kanawha Gas & Utilities Co. v. C. I. R., 5 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 685; Kimbell-Diamond Milling Co. v. Commissioner, 14 T.C. 74, affd. 5 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 718; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ashland Oil & Refining Co., 6 Cir., 1938, 99 F.2d 588, cert. den. 306 U.S. 661, 59 S.Ct. 790, 83 L.Ed. 1057; Georgia Properties Co. v. Henslee, M.D., Tenn., 1955, 138 F.Supp. 587. In some of these cases, the corporations purchased were promptly liquidated and the assets distributed, but, as indicated, Grier had a good business reason unconnected with investment for allowing the corporate form to continue for the term of the lease.
Nor can we agree with the government that this case is basically distinguishable in principle from those cases involving purchase of stock to insure a source of supply for inventory or to post security for performance of a contract. Journal Co. v. United States, E.D., Wis., 1961, 195 F.Supp. 434; Electrical Fittings Corp. v. C. I. R., 33 T.C. 1026 (1960); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bagley & Sewall Co., 2 Cir., 1955, 221 F.2d 944.
In the light of the specific circumstances of this particular case, the loss suffered by Grier in the sale of the stock was an ordinary and not a capital loss. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
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: 1