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 "groups and associations". 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:
Aquelino Jose PACHECO PEREIRA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 6429.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Heard March 2, 1965.
Decided March 18, 1965.
William F. Long, Jr., Fall River, Mass., for appellant.
John M. Callahan, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U. S. Atty., was on brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, WATERMAN, Circuit Judge, and GIGNOUX, District Judge.
Sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition to review a decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, hereinafter Service, affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, in which the Service determined that petitioner was not entitled to adjustment of status and must depart the country. Petitioner is a Portuguese alien who entered as a visitor for pleasure in February 1964. On April 4 he married a resident United States citizen, who shortly thereafter filed a petition with the Service requesting that his status be changed to that of a nonquota immigrant pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1155(b). Petitioner’s leave to remain as a visitor expired on June 1. On June 4, before the Service had acted on her petition for change in her husband’s status, the wife requested that it be withdrawn. The Service acceded. Meanwhile, on April 15, petitioner had applied for adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Upon the withdrawal of the wife’s petition his application was denied, since he could no longer qualify for nonquota status, and he was thereupon ruled to be deportable. Petitioner’s unsuccessful appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals has left him with permission to depart the country voluntarily, and nothing else.
We find no merit in the petition for review. As the court stated in Scalzo v. Humey, D.C.E.D.Pa., 1963, 225 F. Supp. 560, aff’d, 3 Cir., 1964, 338 F.2d 339, an alien in petitioner’s position has no personal right to become a nonquota immigrant. The right lies in the citizen spouse who wishes to keep the family together. Not only does the alien acquire no vested right by the citizen spouse’s filing a petition, but approval of that petition merely renders the alien spouse eligible for immigrant status. Amarante v. Rosenberg, 9 Cir., 1964, 326 F.2d 58. Even after approval of a section 1155 petition the Attorney General could revoke the approval, terminating the alien spouse’s eligibility. 8 U.S.C. § 1156. Under the applicable regulation this revocation is automatic if the citizen spouse requests the withdrawal. 8 C.F.R. § 206.1(b) (1). We must say that it is not clear to us why this determinative regulation was never mentioned until oral argument in this court.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "groups and associations"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0