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:
BROWN v. HUDSPETH, Warden.
No. 1823.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
May 8, 1939.
C. M. Stokes, of Leavenworth, Kan., for appellant.
Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., and Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The petitioner, Rufus Brown, was charged by indictment containing two counts with violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 398. He was tried and found guilty on the first count and sentenced to serve a term of five years in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, > where he is now confined.
The caption of the indictment reads as follows:
“At a stated term of the District Court oí the United States of America for the District of Minnesota held at the City of Saint Paul within and for the District and Division aforesaid, on the first Tuesday in April, being the seventh day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six, by a duly empaneled, charged, and sworn Grand Jury of the United States of America within and for said District, it is presented in manner and form following, that is to say:”
Then follows the charging part of count one which charges the offense to have been committed on the 29th day of April, 1936. The indictment bears the endorsement, “Filed Sept. 18, 1936.” Because of the recitals in the caption, petitioner contends that the indictment was returned prior to the date it alleges the crime was committed and is, therefore, void.
We regard the contention as wholly without merit.
The first day of the regular April, 1936, term of the district court was Tuesday, April 7. No doubt, the grand jury was impaneled on that day and continued in session from time to time until September 18, 1936, when the indictment was filed. At least, there is nothing in the petition or the proofs adduced showing such were not the facts.
The caption is no part of the indictment. It is merely the record of the court and errors therein may be corrected by amendment. The fact that the caption contains an erroneous statement as to the time when the indictment was found is not a fatal defect which vitiates the indictment. The rule has been applied to cases where the caption recited that the indictment was found prior to the date the offense was alleged to have been committed.
In Commonwealth v. Hines, 101 Mass. 33, 34, the court said:
“In our practice, a caption is indeed affixed to every indictment, and returned with it by the grand jury; and is so far a part of the indictment that it may be referred to in order to ascertain the county and state in and for which the indictment is found. Commonwealth v. Edwards, 4 Gray, 1. Commonwealth v. Fisher, 7 Gray, 492. But defects in the title of the court as stated in the caption may be supplied by reference to the certificate indorsed by the clerk upon the indictment at the time of its return into court. Commonwealth v. Mullen, 13 Allen, 551. In the matter of time, especially, the caption is not the sole evidence; for the caption is usually entitled as of-the first day of the term; and yet an indictment with such a caption may be presented by a grand jury impanelled, and for an offence committed, since that day, and may be proved by referring to the clerk’s certificate thereon to have been returned after the day on which it alleges the of-fence to have been committed. Commonwealth v. Stone, 3 Gray, 453.”
Absent a showing that the indictment was in fact returned prior to the time the offense charged was alleged and proved to have been committed, we doubt that the indictment after verdict would be open to direct attack. A fortiori, its sufficiency is not open to challenge upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
The judgment is affirmed.
United States v. Bornemann, C.C., 35 F. 824;
Harrington v. United States, 8 Cir., 267 P. 97, 100;
Gordon v. United States, 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 531, 532;
United States v. Thompson, 28 Fed.Cas. page 98, No. 16490;
Farnum v. United States, 1 Colo. 309, 311;
Stansbury v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 570, 82 S.W.2d 962, 964;
Joyce on Indictments, 2d Ed., §§ 171, 173, 180, 184.
George v. People, 167 Ill. 447, 47 N.E. 741, 742.
State v. Robinson, 85 Me. 147, 26 A. 1092;
Commonwealth v. Brown, 116 Mass. 339;
Commonwealth v. Hines, 101 Mass. 33;
Commonwealth v. Smith, 108 Mass. 486.
See, also, People v. Shaw, 300 Ill. 451, 133 N.E. 208, 209.

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