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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
GRANT v. HUNTER.
No. 3579.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
March 5, 1948.
James B. Radetsky, of Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Eugene W. Davis, of Topeka, Kan., Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner, Cliff Grant, has appealed from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas discharging a writ of habeas corpus.
On' September 13, 1935, petitioner was sentenced by the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to a term of two years for violation of 18 U.S. C.A. § 88, and to a term of five years for violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 347. The two sentences were made to run consecutively. He was committed to the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. With the allowance for good time, he was conditionally released on April 8, 1940. On' June 11, 1940-, he committed an offense against federal law for which he was convicted by the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, and was sentenced to a term of seven years. After the allowance for statutory good time under this sentence, he was discharged on September 24, 1945. On that day, he was recommitted to serve the good time allowed under the previous two-year and five-year sentences.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 710, petitioner was allowed 887 days of good time deduction from the two-year and five-year sentences imposed by the District Court sentencing him in those cases. This good time was computed on the basis of the aggregate of the twO' sentences.
Petitioner maintains that 225 days of the total accumulated good time of 887 days were allowed on the two-year sentence and the balance on the five-year sentence. His argument is that the two sentences were separate and distinct from each other and that, therefore, when he began serving the five-year sentence, the 225 days of the total accumulated good time had fully completed the two-year sentence and that when thereafter he was recommitted, he could be compelled to serve only what remained of the five-year sentence.
There is no merit to this contention. Aside from the statutory provision to that effect, defendant is entitled to no good time deduction. In the absence of such a statute, a prisoner would be compelled to serve the full period of the sentence. We must, therefore, look to the statute to ascertain the amount of good time deduction to which a prisoner is entitled, as well as to to the method and manner in which good time is computed and applied. 18 U.S.C.A. § 710 provides for the allowance of good time. Among other things, it provides for the method of computing and allowing good time where one is serving two or more sentences. That portion of the statute dealing with this question is as follows: “When a prisoner has two or more sentences, the aggregate of his several sentences shall be the basis upon which his deduction shall be estimated.”
It is well settled that the imprisonment of one serving consecutive sentences is considered a single term, consisting of the aggregate of such sentences for the purpose of computing good time allowance. Under this construction of the statute, the credit for good time for good conduct does not accrue until such credit has been completely earned. Any good time deduction is contingent upon good conduct for the entire period of imprisonment until its allowance will end imprisonment. It follows, therefore, that all possible deduction for good time accredited to a prisoner serving consecutive sentences is destroyed by bad conduct even though such conduct occurs after one or more of the successive sentences has been served.
Petitioner remained a ward of the court when he was conditionally released, and when he breached the terms of his conditional release, he was subject to return to the penitentiary to serve the full remaining portion of the term of his sentence without credit for the allowance of any good time.
Affirmed.
Ebeling v. Biddle, 10 Cir., 291 F. 567; Mills v. Aderhold, 10 Cir., 110 F.2d 765; Eori v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 53 F.2d 840; United States v. Greenhaus, 2 Cir., 89 F.2d 634; Carroll v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 76 F.2d 961; Pagliaro v. Cox, 8 Cir., 143 F.2d 900.
Ebeling v. Biddle, 10 Cir., 291 F. 567; Carroll v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 76 F.2d 961; Pagliaro v. Cox, 8 Cir., 143 F.2d 900; Morgan v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F. 2d 171.
Ebeling v. Biddle, 10 Cir., 291 F. 567; Carroll v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 76 F.2d 961; Aderhold v. Hudson, 5 Cir., 84 F.2d 559; Aderhold v. Perry, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 379; United States v. Nicholson, 4 Cir., 78 F.2d 468.
Gray v. Swope, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 822; Carroll v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 76 F.2d 961; Aderhold v. Hudson, 5 Cir., 84 F.2d 559; Aderhold v. Perry, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 379; Ebeling v. Biddle, 10 Cir., 291 F. 567.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1