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:
UNITED STATES of America and B. Jack Henry, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners-Appellees, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF RUSH SPRINGS and Raymond H. Rust, President, Respondents, Dwight E. Baker, Intervenor-Appellant, Linda S. Baker, Intervenor.
No. 78-1023.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Submitted on Memoranda April 17, 1978.
Decided May 16, 1978.
Phillip H. Leonard, Duncan, Okl., filed a memorandum opposing summary action on behalf of intervenor-appellant.
M. Carr Ferguson, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., filed memorandum supporting summary action on behalf of petitioners-appellees.
Before LEWIS, BARRETT, and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants Dwight E. and Linda S. Baker have appealed an order entered by a United States Magistrate for the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The order grants enforcement of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summons directing respondent bank to turn over certain documents and records to IRS agents for the purpose of ascertaining any federal tax liability appellants may have incurred. The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the order appealed from is not final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and that accordingly this court is without jurisdiction. We agree.
Appellants assert as the basis for their claim of finality several propositions. First they claim that Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440, 84 S.Ct. 508, 11 L.Ed.2d 459 (1964) held that orders entered in proceedings under 26 U.S.C. § 7604(b), before either a United States District Judge or a United States Commissioner (since replaced by United States Magistrates), are appealable directly to the court of appeals.
In Reisman, supra, the Supreme Court held that a person challenging an IRS summons is entitled to an adversarial proceeding affording a judicial determination of the challenges to the summons. Reisman, supra, 375 U.S. at 446, 84 S.Ct. 508. The Court indicated that such proceedings could be held before either a judge or a commissioner and that such orders are appealable. Id. at 449, 84 S.Ct. 508. The case does not state that the order of a commissioner may be appealed directly to a court of appeals.
Two circuits have held that magistrates’ orders enforcing IRS summonses must be appealed first to the district court. United States v. Cline, 566 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Haley, 541 F.2d 678 (8th Cir. 1974); Swanson and Youngsdale, Inc. v. Seagrave Corp., 561 F.2d 171 (8th Cir. 1977). Appellant claims that these cases have misstated the law. We disagree.
The purpose of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 631, et seq. was to provide a method to relieve judges of some of their non-Article III functions. TPO, Inc. v. McMillen, 460 F.2d 348 (7th Cir. 1972). It is clear that district court judges were intended to retain ultimate decision-making power and continuing jurisdiction over the actions of magistrates. See Keller v. Matthews, 543 F.2d 624 (8th Cir. 1976); Bruno v. Hamilton, 521 F.2d 114 (8th Cir. 1975); O’Shea v. United States, 491 F.2d 774 (1st Cir. 1974); Campbell v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974).
The Supreme Court, in holding that the assigning of social security benefit cases to United States Magistrates for review of the Secretary’s findings and for the preparation of findings of fact and conclusions of law is proper under the Act, states that:
The Act’s sponsors made it quite clear that the magistrate acts ‘under the supervision of the district judges’ when he accepts a referral, and that authority for making final decisions remains at all times with the district judge. . ‘A district judge would retain ultimate responsibility for decision making in every instance in which a magistrate might exercise additional duties jurisdiction.’ (citations omitted).
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549, 554, 46 L.Ed.2d 483.
Finally, appellant claims that there exists no right of appeal to the district judge from the magistrate’s order. To the contrary, the local rules of court for the Western District of Oklahoma specifically provide that “any party may appeal from the magistrate’s determination made under this Rule within ten (10) days after the issuance of the magistrate’s order, unless a different time is prescribed by the magistrate or a judge.” Local Rule 31(l)(h). Appellant’s attempt to distinguish this section from § 2 by contending that it is Rule 31(2)(m) which authorizes the magistrate to enter IRS enforcement orders is not well taken. Section 2 simply delineates additional duties and functions of the Oklahoma City magistrate; Section 1(h) provides for all appeals under the rule from actions of magistrates.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 the court of appeals is granted jurisdiction to entertain appeals from final orders. The order of the magistrate in this case could be entertained only by the district court on appeal.
The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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: 99