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:
Monir A. GEORGE, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Maurice W. McQuade, Secretary of the Board, and David Eisenberg, President of the Board.
No. 85-5817.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) June 5, 1986.
Decided June 27, 1986.
Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied July 29,1986.
Monir A. George, pro se.
W. Cary Edwards, Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, James J. Ciancia, Asst. Atty. Gen., Trenton, N.J., Maxine H. Neuhauser, Deputy Atty. Gen., Newark, N.J., for appellees.
Before ADAMS, HIGGINBOTHAM and MARIS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MARIS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from the final order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 635 F.Supp. 953, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. That complaint charged the defendants, the New Jersey Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners and the Board’s secretary and president, with having violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq., in denying the plaintiff’s application to be admitted to practice veterinary medicine in New Jersey. The plaintiff asserted that the denial was based on his national origin, Egypt. In a well-reasoned opinion, Judge Lacey of the district court held that the defendant Board was not an employer or employment agency within the meaning of section 701 of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, with respect to applicants for admission to practice veterinary medicine in the State of New Jersey, such as the plaintiff, and was, therefore, not subject as to such persons to the prohibition of discriminatory employment practices imposed by section 703 of the Act. F.Supp. (D.N.J.1985).
We are in accord with the views expressed by Judge Lacey and affirm for the reasons stated in his opinion and which it would serve no useful purpose to restate here. We need only add that Haddock v. Board of Dental Examiners of Cal., 777 F.2d 462 (9th Cir.1985), involving the licensing of dentists by the State of California, and Darks v. City of Cincinnati, 745 F.2d 1040 (6th Cir.1984), involving the licensing of dance halls by the City of Cincinnati, are in accord with our view that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, is not applicable to the licensing functions of a public agency exercised under the police powers of a state.
We do not regard Sibley Memorial Hospital v. Wilson, 488 F.2d 1338 (D.C.Cir.1973), upon which the plaintiff relies, as authority to the contrary. That case involved a private hospital which at the request of its patients contacted unemployed private duty nurses for employment by those patients. This procedure, the court said, constituted the hospital an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In preventing the plaintiff, a male nurse, from reporting to female patients who had requested private nursing service, the hospital, the court held, had engaged in an unlawful employment practice, discrimination on the basis of sex, within the purview of section 703 of the Act. In the Sibley Memorial Hospital case the relationship of the hospital to the employment by its patients of private duty nurses secured for them by the hospital was very close, whereas in the present case there was nothing even remotely resembling an employer-employee relationship between the Board and the plaintiff. Moreover, the exercise of the police power was not involved in the Sibley Memorial Hospital case, whereas in the present case that power was being exercised by the defendants to protect the public from unqualified veterinary service.
The order of the district court will be affirmed.
. “(b) The term "employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person____
“(c) The term "employment agency” means any person regularly undertaking with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer or to procure for employees opportunities to work for an employer and includes an agent of such a person.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e.
. "(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin ...
"(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex or national origin----” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2.

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: 3