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:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. SOMERVILLE CREAM CO., Inc.
No. 4642.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Oct. 22, 1952.
James A. Ryan, Washington, D. C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P., Findling, Asst. Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Fannie M. Boyls, Washington, D. C., on brief), for petitioner.
James Charles Roy, Boston, Mass., for respondent.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of an order issued by it on August 17, 1951, directed against respondent, Somerville Cream Company, Inc. The order is in the usual remedial terms, predicated upon administrative findings that respondent had committed certain unfair labor practices. The Board submitted its case on brief and oral argument. Respondent submitted on the record by leave of court.
A hearing on the complaint was held before a Trial Examiner commencing April 3, 1951. Counsel for respondent appeared, for the sole purpose of presenting a medical affidavit as to the illness of respondent’s president, upon the basis of which an indefinite postponement of the hearing was requested. The affidavit affirmed that the president was suffering from a form of thrombosis which affected his sense of balance, so that he was unable to walk alone. Two previous postponements had been granted by the Board. Counsel for the Board opposed a further continuance, but expressed his willingness to have the Trial Examiner hold a hearing in the president’s home for the purpose of taking his testimony. The Trial Examiner said he would entertain a motion by respondent for the taking of the president’s deposition. Neither of these suggestions was embraced by counsel for respondent.
The Trial Examiner denied the application for a further postponement, whereupon counsel for respondent left the hearing. The hearing of the Board’s case then proceeded, in the absence of respondent. There was testimony by respondent’s treasurer that the president, despite his illness, was able, with assistance, to come to the office for short periods, and that the treasurer frequently called at the president’s house to discuss business matters with him.
After the hearing, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Pursuant to the Board’s rules and regulations, respondent filed its exceptions to the Intermediate Report, as follows:
“1. The denial of the Trial Examiner of the Respondent’s request for motion of postponement of the hearlng * ^ ^
“2. The findings of fact of the Trial Examiner and the recommendations of the Trial Examiner.”
Upon review of the case, the Board ruled that the Trial Examiner had not abused his discretion in denying respondent’s request for a further adjournment of the hearing; and with this ruling we are in entire accord. N. L. R. B. v. Somerville Buick, Inc., 1 Cir., 1952, 194 F.2d 56.
With reference to the second exception to the Trial Examiner’s report, it might perhaps be doubted whether such a blanket, unspecified objection to the Trial Examiner’s findings would entitle this court to examine the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings that respondent was guilty of unfair labor practices. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Auburn Curtain Co., Inc., 1 Cir., 1951, 193 F.2d 826. At any rate, from an examination of the transcript we are satisfied that the Board’s evidence (which was all the evidence there was) amply supports the findings of the Trial Examiner, which were adopted by the Board, as to the commission of the unfair labor practices. The terms of the remedial order are appropriate in view of the particular unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by respondent. The evidence in the transcript also satisfiés us that respondent was subject to the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., and that the Board had jurisdiction to enter the order in question.
A decree will be entered enforcing the order of the Board.

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