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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kerry SUTHERLAND, Appellant.
No. 89-5319.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 20, 1989.
Decided Dec. 4, 1989.
Scott F. Tilsen, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
James E. Lackner, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Kerry Sutherland appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he entered a plea of guilty to one count of bank larceny in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). Sutherland was sentenced under the Sentencing Guidelines to eight months’ imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. We affirm.
On appeal, Sutherland challenges the increase for “more than minimal planning,” and the court’s failure to depart downward to reflect his good faith efforts to assist the government and his mitigating family circumstances. Sutherland argues that the court abused its discretion by not giving him a six-month sentence which would have permitted community or intermittent confinement.
Sutherland argues that the district court incorrectly applied the guidelines by increasing the offense level for “more than minimal planning” under Sentencing Guideline 2B1.1(b)(4) by two levels. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in this increase in the offense level. United States v. Nunley, 873 F.2d 182, 186 (8th Cir.1989) (involving a guideline permitting decrease for playing a minimal role in criminal activity). Sutherland does not argue that the factual findings are clearly erroneous but argues that the district court’s legal conclusion that there was more than minimal planning was in error.
The district court at the sentencing found, with respect to the more than minimal planning requirement, that Sutherland and an accomplice broke into an automatic teller machine, that several months before the offense Sutherland spoke with another employee of the bank who had access to combinations of the automatic teller about robbing the machines, and that the day before the offense he called her and obtained the combination to the automatic teller. There was also evidence that Sutherland arranged for a friend to go to the automatic teller and break it open while he waited outside, which would prevent his picture from being taken by the camera in the machine. After the burglary, the money was concealed in a briefcase at another friend’s house. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that these facts demonstrated more than minimal planning.
Sutherland also argues that the district court failed to depart downward from the guideline range for failure to take into consideration his unusual family responsibilities. The guidelines, however, provide in section 5H1.6 that “family ties and responsibilities ... are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a sentence should be outside the guidelines_” Sutherland’s argument has no merit in view of the clear statement in the guidelines with respect to this subject.
Sutherland also argues that the case should be remanded because the district court may have thought it could not grant a departure for “substantial assistance” absent a motion by the government. In United States v. Grant, 886 F.2d 1513 (8th Cir.1989), this court held that the requirement in Sentencing Guideline § 5K1.1 of a motion by the government for such a departure is constitutional. Finally, in United States v. Justice, 877 F.2d 664, 668-69 (8th Cir.1989), this court stated that in an appropriate case, the district court may be empowered to grant a departure for “substantial assistance” notwithstanding the government’s refusal to motion the sentencing court for such a departure. The court, however, need not reward a defendant for his cooperation if that defendant already received the benefit of his cooperation through a plea agreement, as did Sutherland. Id. Sutherland’s argument is without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

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