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. Steven WASHINGTON, Appellant.
No. 428, Docket 78-1254.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 5, 1978.
Decided Feb. 20, 1979.
Peter J. Fabricant, Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellant.
Shira A. Scheindlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y. (Edward R. Korman, U. S. Atty., E. D. N. Y. Harvey M. Stone, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y. of counsel), for appellee.
Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, and SMITH and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was arrested on March 17, 1978, after he and a companion, a suspected bank robber, attempted to elude federal officers in a high-speed automobile chase through the Borough of Queens in New York City. When the car in which appellant was a passenger was forced to stop by a truck that was blocking the street, appellant emerged from the vehicle as if to surrender, then suddenly bolted into the crowd that had gathered. The officers gave chase and cornered appellant in an alley. When he brandished a gun at the approaching officers, he was shot.
Appellant subsequently was charged in a two-count indictment with one count of assaulting federal officers, 18 U.S.C. §§ 111, 1114, and one count of possession of a deadly weapon by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1). After a jury convicted him on both counts, he was sentenced to eight years imprisonment on the first and given a suspended two-year sentence on the second.
To establish the elements of the section 1202(a)(1) offense, the Government introduced a stipulation between the parties that appellant had been convicted of a prior felony. After referring to the prior conviction in his charge, the district judge refused defense counsel’s request to instruct the jury that the conviction could not be considered as evidence of a general propensity to commit crimes but could be considered only to establish the prior felony element of count two of the indictment. This was error.
Where evidence is admissible for one purpose but is inadmissible for another, the trial judge should, when requested, instruct the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence may be considered. Fed.R.Ev. 105. This circuit has consistently held that evidence of prior criminal conduct which is admissible for a limited purpose must, where the defendant requests, be accompanied by a limiting instruction. See, e. g., United States v. Benedetto, 571 F.2d 1246, 1250 n.9 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Chestnut, 533 F.2d 40, 49-50 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 829, 97 S.Ct. 88, 50 L.Ed.2d 93 (1976); United States v. Gerry, 515 F.2d 130, 141 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 832, 96 S.Ct. 54, 46 L.Ed.2d 50 (1975).
Although the nature of appellant’s prior felony was not revealed to the jury, we believe that the revelation that appellant previously had been convicted of a felony was sufficient to entitle him to the limiting instruction he requested.
Although there was substantial evidence of appellant’s guilt, we cannot say it is highly probable that the failure to give a limiting instruction did not contribute to the verdict. See United States v. Corey, 566 F.2d 429, 432 (2d Cir. 1977). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Reversed.
. The stipulation, which was read to the jury, provided as follows:
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the United States of America by Assistant United States Attorney Shira A. Scheindlin and counsel for the defendant Steven Washington by Peter Fabricant, that the defendant Steven Washington had been convicted of a felony in the State of New York prior to March 17, 1978.
. The court’s instruction to the jury was, in pertinent part, as follows:
The offense charged in count two of the indictment has three essential elements.
First, that the defendant was convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States.
A stipulation conceding conviction of a felony has been received in evidence between the parties. I instruct you that the crime for which the defendant was convicted is a felony under the laws of the State of New York.
. The defense rested without calling any witnesses.

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: 0