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:
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CREWS and five other cases.
Nos. 1751-1756.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 11, 1939.
Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst, to the Atty. Gen. (James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch and Sewall Key, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., on the brief), for petitioner.
Albert L. McRill, of Oklahoma City, Okl., and Joseph D. Brady, of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and WILLIAMS/ Circuit Judges.
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
These are petitions to review, consolidated in this court, decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals involving income taxes for the year 1930 on income derived from oil and gas wells.
These cases were before this court on a prior appeal. See Crews v. Commissioner, 10 Cir., 89 F.2d 412. They were reversed and remanded to the Board for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.
In the original proceeding before the Board the parties stipulated that the cost of drilling, equipping, and operating the wells, and certain miscellaneous expenses incident to the production of oil and gas amounted to $849,544.37. At the hearing before the Board after the remand the parties stipulated that such sum was composed of the following items:
Operating Expense:
Production Expense....... $272,042.56
General Overhead Expense 31,107.34
Depreciation on Equipment 110,888.17
Total Operating Expense .............. $414,038.07
Development Expense (drilling costs) ..............'.. $387,982.80
Equipment ...... $158,411.67
Less: Depreciation sustained 110,888.17 47,523.50
Total ................ $849,544.37
The taxpayers deducted the development expenses and related depreciation in computing their taxable net income from the property for the year 1930.
The Board of Tax Appeals held that in computing the net income of the taxpayers from the property for the purpose of applying the 50 per cent limitation contained in Section 114(b) (3) of the Revenue Act of 1928, 26 U.S.C.A. § 114 note, the development expenses and related depreciation should not be deducted from the gross income from the property. This resulted in a depletion allowance of $333,700.42.
The Commissioner contends that in computing the depletion allowance the development expenses and related depreciation should be deducted in arriving at the net income from the property, and that the proper computation is as follows:
Gross Income from the property ................ $1,213,456.09
, Less: Operating and Development Expense..... 849,544.37
Net Income from the property ............ $ 363,911.72
50 per cent of the net income from the property equals........... $ 181,955.86
27% per cent of the gross income from the property equals .............. 333,700.42
The conflict of authority with respect to the meaning of the phrase “net income of the taxpayer (computed without allowance for depletion) from the property” in Section 114(b) (3) of the Revenue Act of 1928 has been set at rest by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Helvering, Commissioner v. Wilshire Oil Company, 60 S. Ct. 18, 84 L.Ed.-, and F. H. E. Oil Company v. Commissioner, 60 S.Ct. 26, 84 L.Ed. -, which 'sustain the contentions of the Commissioner in the instant cases. Hence, the proper depletion allowance is $181,955.-86.
The decisions are reversed and the causes are remanded, with instructions to redetermine the tax in accordance with this opinion.
See Ambassador Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 81 F.2d 474; Commissioner v. Wilshire Oil Co., 9 Cir., 95 F.2d 971; Commissioner v. F. H. E. Oil Co., 5 Cir., 102 F.2d 596.

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