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:
Vernell PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia Roberts HARRIS, Secretary of Health and Human Resources, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 79-3551
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 20, 1980.
Martha Joe Stroud, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., Joseph S. Friedman, Trial Atty., Dept. of HEW, Office of Gen. Counsel, Social Security Div., Baltimore, Md., for defendant-appellant.
John G. Heike, Dallas Legal Services Foundation, Inc., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before AINSWORTH, FAY and RANDALL, Circuit Judges.
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18.
PER CURIAM:
The Secretary of Health and Human Resources (formerly the Department of Health, Education and Welfare) appeals the district court’s award of disability benefits to the appellee, Vernell Parks, contrary to the Secretary’s determination that Parks is not in fact disabled. Because the district court relied on evidence outside the record of the administrative proceedings in awarding benefits in this case, we vacate the district court’s decision and remand the case to the Secretary for reconsideration.
Parks filed a claim on July 7, 1976 for a period of disability and for disability insurance benefits under sections 216(i) and 223 of Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423. He alleged he became disabled as of February 1975, primarily as a result of the loss of his left arm. He also complained of high blood pressure, diabetes, and spells of dizziness. The application was denied by the Office of Disability Operations of the Social Security Administration. Parks then took his claim before an administrative law judge, who also concluded that plaintiff was not disabled. The administrative law judge’s decision became the final decision of the Secretary when it was approved by the Appeals Council on February 28, 1979.
Parks then brought the present suit in district court seeking judicial review of the adverse action of the Secretary, as authorized by the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Attached to a motion for summary judgment in this action, Parks offered additional evidence of his disabilities which had not been presented to either the administrative law judge or the Appeals Council. This evidence consisted of several medical diagnostic reports and a hospital discharge summary dated April 5, 1979 which diagnosed Parks as suffering from sleep apnea syndrome. During the administrative proceedings, Parks had repeatedly complained of dizziness, blacking out, and suddenly falling asleep. He testified that if he was required to remain sitting for any period of time he would fall asleep. The vocational expert who appeared before the administrative law judge testified that if Parks indeed had a sleep disorder which resulted in uncontrollable somnolence he would not be able to engage in any substantial gainful activity. Sleep apnea syndrome, which in Parks’ case results in cessation of air exchange at the nose and mouth for 15 to 40 seconds every 45 to 50 seconds during his sleep, is a serious sleep disorder that can result in uncontrollable somnolence during the day.
The district court, in awarding benefits to Parks, first held that there was no substantial evidence to support the administrative law judge’s finding that Parks had never voiced concern about sleepiness to treating physicians. The court then concluded that “based on the evidence already in the record and the evidence marked as ‘exhibit I’ ” [the new diagnostic tests] Parks was disabled as he was unable to “engage in. any substantial gainful activity.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
On appeal, the Secretary contends the district court erred in not affirming her decision since it was based on substantial evidence, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and also contends the court erred by ordering payments without taking into consideration the five-month waiting period for entitlement to payments contained in 42 U.S.C. § 223(d)(3). We need not labor these points, however, since the Secretary’s third contention — that the court erred in basing its decision on evidence outside the administrative record — requires that we vacate the district court’s decision and remand the matter to the Secretary for her further consideration.
Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sets forth the procedure for judicial review of the final decisions of the Secretary. The statute requires that suit be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. The Secretary, as part of her answer to the suit, must file with the court a certified copy of the “transcript of the record including the evidence upon which the findings and decision complained of are based.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court then has the authority to review the Secretary’s decision “upon the pleadings and transcript of the record.” Id. The medical evidence of Parks’ sleep disorder relied upon by the district court in awarding benefits to Parks was outside the administrative record and therefore not properly before the court. Later provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) establish the procedure for handling evidence arising after the conclusion of the administrative proceedings:
The court . . . may, at any time, on good cause shown, order additional evidence to be taken before the Secretary, and the Secretary shall, after the case is remanded, and after hearing such additional evidence if so ordered, modify or affirm his findings of fact or its decision, or both, and shall file with the court any such additional and modified findings of fact and decision, and a transcript of the additional record and testimony upon which his action in modifying or affirming was based. Such additional or modified findings of fact and decision shall be reviewable only to the extent provided for review of the original findings of fact and decision.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added).
Under the circumstances the district court should have remanded the case to the Secretary, directing that she review the case in light of the additional medical evidence presented by Parks. The new evidence of Parks’ medical condition is highly relevant, probative, and must be considered before a rational determination of his disability status can be made. Williams v. Califano, 590 F.2d 1332, 1334 (5th Cir. 1979). We therefore vacate the opinion of the district court and remand the case to the Secretary for consideration of all evidence relating to Parks’ disability, especially that relating to the claimed sleep disorder. Because of the lengthy history of this case as it has wound its way through administrative channels and judicial appeals, we urge the Secretary to expedite reconsideration of this matter, giving final resolution of this claim highest priority.
VACATED AND REMANDED.

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