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:
THE SOUTHERN CROSS. THE PAN AMERICA. THE WESTERN WORLD.
No. 242.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 9, 1941.
John J. Bennett, Jr., Atty. Gen. of New York (Henry Epstein, Sol. Gen., and W. Gerard Ryan and Francis R. Curran, Ass’t Atlys. Gen., of counsel) for Frieda S. Miller as Industrial Commissioner, appellant.
Harold M. Kennedy, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (William E. Collins, Sp. Asst, to U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for Roscoe H. Ilupper, as receiver, appellee.
Before SWAN, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
SWAN, Circuit Judge.
Suits in admiralty were filed by the United States to foreclose preferred mortgages held by it upon the steamships Southern Cross, Pan America and Western World. By orders duly entered in said suits, Roscoe H. Hupper, the appellee, was appointed receiver to operate said vessels pendente lite “solely for the account of the libellant.” For the purpose of such operation the receiver maintained an office in New York City and employed therein four or more employees whose services were performed entirely on land. The State of New York acting through its Industrial Commissioner, the appellant, presented claims to the receiver for unemployment insurance taxes due to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Fund pursuant to Article 18 of the New York Labor Law. Such claims were based on the total payroll of the receiver’s office employees, exclusive of seamen working on said vessels. The receiver refused to pay said taxes and brought on a motion to disallow the claims on the ground that he was exempt from such taxation as an instrumentality of the United States. From an order granting the receiver’s motion the State of New York by its Industrial Commissioner has appealed.
By virtue of federal statutes any receiver appointed by a court of the United States is subject to the same tax liability as the owner would have been had he continued in possession and operation of the enterprise. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 124, 124a; see Palmer v. Webster & Atlas Nat. Bank, 312 U.S. 156, 61 S.Ct. 542, 85 L.Ed. —; Boteler v. Ingels, 308 U.S. 57, 61, 60 S.Ct. 29, 84 L.Ed. 78. Concededly, an “ordinary” receiver appointed in litigation between private parties and operating these vessels would have to pay the taxes in dispute, but the appellee claims immunity because he was appointed in order to effectuate the national public interest in a continuation of the service in which the vessels were engaged, and only after the United States Maritime Commission had guaranteed to the court payment of the contemplated losses which their operation would entail. These facts, it is urged, make the appellee as receiver, an instrumentality of the United States and as such entitle him to exemption, either under the express provisions of the state statute or under the familiar doctrine, enunciated in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579, of the constitutional immunity of federal instrumentalities from state taxation.
Section 502, subd. 3(3) (d) of the New York Labor Law, Consol. Laws, c. 31, exempts from unemployment insurance taxes “The state of New York, municipal corporations and other governmental subdivisions * * * ”. Plainly a receiver operating for the account of the United States cannot be described as a “governmental subdivision” without ascribing to those words a most strained, unnatural meaning and disregarding utterly the rule of ejusdem generis in statutory construction. The appellee contends that the word “subdivision” must be deemed synonymous with instrumentality. Assuming this should be accepted to avoid doubts as to the constitutionality of the statute as applied to the appellee, then the two branches of his argument, namely, exemption under the state law and immunity under the implied constitutional prohibition, coalesce; and the sole issue is whether he is such an instrumentality of the United States as to be immune from taxation by the state.
The federal statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 124a, declares that “any receiver” authorized by a United States court to conduct “any business” shall be subject to all state and local taxes applicable to such business. It makes no exception in favor of receivers appointed in suits by the United States; it specifies “any business”, regardless of its nature or for whose benefit it is conducted. It might well be argued that by this statute Congress waived immunity from taxation, even if the receiver could be deemed an instrumentality of the federal government. But passing that consideration, we are convinced that he is not such an instrumentali-. ty.
When the United States came into court to foreclose its mortgage liens, it accepted the stature of an ordinary suitor. See United States v. National City Bank, 2 Cir., 83 F.2d 236, 238, 106 A.L.R. 1235, certorari denied, 299 U.S. 563, 57 S.Ct. 25, 81 L.Ed. 414. Mountain Copper Co. v. United States, 9 Cir., 142 F. 625, 629. The receiver appointed on its behalf can stand no higher than a receiver appointed in any foreclosure suit between private litigants. He is an agent of the court, not of the Maritime Commission or the United States. The fact that libellant’s request for the receivership was granted in order to promote some governmental policy respecting the merchant marine, does not convert the receiver into a governmental instrumentality. Compare Federal Compress & W. Co. v. McLean, 291 U.S. 17, 23, 54 S.Ct. 267, 78 L.Ed. 622, where it was held that the conferring of a federal license upon a corpora-tion, though to promote a governmental policy, did not constitute the licensee an instrumentality of the federal government immune from state taxation. Nor does that result follow from the fact, chiefly relied upon by the appellee, that the exaction of the taxes in suit will cast a burden on the United States Treasury by reason of the Maritime Commission’s guarantee of losses resulting from the receivership. If it did, any enterprise operated at a loss to be made good by federal subsidy could, in the same sense, be called a “governmental instrumentality”; but no one would presume to contend that a private shipowner operating under the differential subsidy authorized by 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 1171-1182 would be immune from non-discriminatory state taxation. It cannot be successfully maintained that state taxes which impose a financial burden on the United States are necessarily invalid. Thus, in United States v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 41 L.Ed. 287, it was held that a legacy to the United States was subject to a state inheritance tax, although the amount of the legacy was thereby diminished. Again, and this is a closer analogy, a surety company does not, by becoming surety on bonds required by the United States, act as a federal instrumentality so as to be exempt from a state tax on the premiums received, although it seems fairly obvious that the tax will be passed on in the form of higher premiums to be charged for the bonds. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Pennsylvania, 240 U.S. 319, 36 S.Ct. 298, 60 L.Ed. 664; see also Gromer v. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U.S. 362, 371, 32 S.Ct. 499, 56 L.Ed. 801. Moreover, recent Supreme Court decisions have pointed out that the implied immunity of one government and its agencies from taxation by the other should be narrowly restricted. Graves v. People of the State of New York, 306 U.S. 466, 483, 59 S.Ct. 595, 83 L.Ed. 927, 120 A.L.R. 1466 and cases cited therein.
For the foregoing reasons we conclude that the appellee is not entitled to an exemption from the taxes in suit and that the district court erred in disallowing the appellant’s claims. Order reversed.

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