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, Petitioner, v. FLORA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and Argus Construction Company, doing business as Flora and Argus Construction Company, Respondents.
No. 6884.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Nov. 30, 1962.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Paul J. Spielberg, Washington, D. C., Attorney (Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, and Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, on brief), for petitioner.
No appearance for respondents.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and LEWIS and SETH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
By this proceedings, the National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order finding that Flora Construction Company and Argus Construction Company, doing business as Flora and Argus Construction Company, had engaged in unfair labor practices, by interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise of their bargaining rights guaranteed under Sec. 7 (29 U.S.C. § 157), in violation of Sec. 8(a) (1) (29 U.S.C. § 158), and by discharging seven employees because of their union activities in violation of Sec. 8(a) (3) (29 U.S.C. § 158).
Petitioner filed a brief in support of enforcement and counsel appeared for oral argument. Walter W. Flora filed an answer brief and appeared for oral argument, as President and Stockholder, on behalf of Flora Construction Company.. Upon authority of Flora Construction Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 10 Cir., 307 F.2d 413, the Court advised Mr. Flora that he could not appear on behalf of the corporation, since he was not a member of the Bar. Mr. Flora was advised, however, that an extension of time would be granted, to enable him to retain legal counsel to represent the corporation, if he so desired. The offer was declined, and the Court thereupon struck the Respondents’ brief and took the Petition on the record, the Board’s brief, and a statement by its counsel.
In these circumstances, our review will be limited to an examination of the findings, to determine whether they support the Board’s order, and whether the order is in accordance with the applicable statutes. See: N. L. R. B. v. Kellburn Mfg. Co., Inc., 2 Cir., 149 F.2d 686; N. L. R. B. v. Industrial Metal Fabricators, Inc., 7 Cir., 158 F.2d 14; N. L. R. B. v. Eva-Ray Dress Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 191 F.2d 850; N. L. R. B. v. Auburn Curtain Co., Inc., 1 Cir., 193 F.2d 826; and, N. L. R. B. v. Wagner Iron Works, etc., 7 Cir., 220 F.2d 126, 132.
The Board adopted the findings, conclusions and recommendations of its Trial Examiner, with respect to the Sec. 8(a) (1) unfair-labor practices. It also adopted the Trial Examiner’s findings, with respect to Sec. 8(a) (3) discriminatory discharges of employees Steve Bolan, Jack Cuddy, Vince Jahner, Samuel J. Wilson, Herbert Schuchardt and Jerry Sutton. As to employee, McCaslin, the Examiner found that the complaint impliedly conceded his unconditional reinstatement on January 12, 1960; that the question whether his subsequent resignation on January 15, 1960 amounted to a constructive discharge was not a tendered issue in the case; and, that the General Counsel’s contention in that respect must, therefore, be rejected. The Examiner recommended, however, that Respondents be required to offer McCaslin reinstatement, and that he be made whole until offered unconditional reinstatement. Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, but contrary to his recommendations, the Board concluded that the question of McCaslin’s resignation on January 15, 1960 was not an issue in the case; that Respondents should not be required to offer McCaslin reinstatement; and, that he be made whole for .any loss only to January 12, 1960, the date of his unconditional reinstatement.
We are convinced that the Board’s order is supported by its findings, is in accordance with the statutes, and it will be enforced.

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