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:
Harry L. CUMBERLAND, Appellant, v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY, Appellee.
No. 7026.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Nov. 7, 1955.
Decided Nov. 9, 1955.
Harry L. Cumberland, pro se, on brief. James H. Norris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., of Maryland (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., of Maryland, on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, DO-BIE, Circuit Judge, and BARKSDALE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a prisoner who is held in custody under the judgment of a Maryland State Court. The appeal must be dismissed for lack of the certificate of probable cause required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253. In addition, it is perfectly clear that the appeal is entirely without merit. The questions which appellant sought to raise by the writ of habeas corpus have been passed upon by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in denying to appellant leave to appeal from denial of habeas corpus by a Maryland state judge. Cumberland v. Warden, 205 Md. 646, 109 A.2d 66, 67, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 929, 75 S.Ct. 344. In that case the court said:
“We have repeatedly held that after trial and conviction the legality of arrest cannot be inquired into upon habeas corpus. Spence v. Warden, 204 Md. 661, 103 A.2d 345. Nor can the extent or legality of his initial detention. Bowie v. Warden, 190 Md. 728, 60 A.2d 185; Taylor v. Warden, 201 Md. 656, 92 A.2d 757; Fisher v. Swenson, 192 Md. 717, 64 A.2d 124. He admits that counsel was appointed to defend him, and there is no allegation that he complained to the court as to the conduct or competency of the counsel appointed. Gillum v. Warden, 200 Md. 656, 90 A.2d 173; Thanos v. Superintendent, 204 Md. 665, 104 A.2d 926. Nor is there any allegation that he objected to the pleas of guilty entered by his counsel. Counsel, of course, had a right to speak for the accused both in the matter of jury trial and plea of guilty. Ahern v. Warden, 203 Md. 672, 100 A.2d 645; Adkins v. Warden, 196 Md. 652, 75 A.2d 772; State ex rel. Freeland v. Warden, 193 Md. 696, 65 A.2d 886; Battle v. Warden, 190 Md. 720, 60 A.2d 182. If the defendant acquiesces, the point could not be raised even on direct appeal where the scope of review is far wider. Banks v. State, 203 Md. 488, 497, 102 A.2d 267; Rose v. State, 177 Md. 577, 581, 10 A.2d 617. Of course, if the plea of guilty was entered without objection in the presence of the accused, as we must assume, there was no occasion for the State to produce witnesses to prove the charges. Lockman v. Warden, 203 Md. 657, 99 A.2d 721; State ex rel. Jordan v. Warden, 191 Md. 753, 59 A.2d 778.”
Where the questions which appellant sought to raise had been adequately considered and properly passed upon by the state courts, appellant was not entitled, as a matter of right, to raise them by habeas corpus in the federal court. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 460-465, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469.
Appeal dismissed.

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