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.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case. 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, Appellant, v. MICHAEL SCHIAVONE & SONS, INC., Appellee.
No. 71-1194.
United States Court of Appeals, First District.
Argued Sept. 8, 1971.
Decided Oct. 1, 1971.
Leonard Schaitman, Atty., Dept, of Justice, with whom Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Herbert F. Trav-ers, Jr., U. S. Atty. and L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Attys. Gen., were on brief, for appellant.
Kevin M. Keating, Boston, Mass., with whom Joseph S. Oteri and Crane, Inker & Oteri, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
COFFIN, Circuit Judge.
When this case was remanded to the district court, United States v. Michael Schiavone & Sons, Inc., 430 F.2d 231 (1st Cir. 1970), it was a new ball game with new ground rules. The district court’s ruling on remand that it was too late to go into the dollar amount of the defendant’s gross cost was erroneous — an error for which we take some responsibility because of a reasonable, though unintended, interpretation of language in our opinion. The fact is that the expenditure for the office building was not an obligation under the lease. Under our prior ruling, therefore, it was not appropriately included in computing the total purchase price and the amount of the illegal rebate. The judgment entered below, 325 F.Supp. 48, must be modified accordingly.
Further questions have arisen as to whether the court’s judgment should carry interest and, if so, whether from the date of the original judgment or that of the judgment as finally modified. 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is clear in providing that “[i]nterest shall be allowed ' on any money judgment in a civil ease recovered in a district court.” In arguing that an Elkins award is in reality a “penalty or forfeiture” and therefore should not bear interest, appellee has failed to distinguish between (1) the accrual of interest from the date of final judgment to the date of actual payment and (2) prejudgment interest which may under appropriate circumstances be assessed as an item of damages to compensate more adequately for a proven wrong. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. Amirault et al., 202 F.2d 893, 895 (1st Cir. 1953); United States v. United Drill & Tool Corp., 87 U.S.App.D.C. 236, 183 F.2d 998 (1950). A claim of interest on a statutory penalty for the period prior to judgment, in the absence of specific statutory authorization or persuasive showing of congressional intent, falls outside the latter rationale and under the general rule proscribing interest on penalties. Rodgers v. United States, 332 U.S. 371, 373, 68 S.Ct. 5, 92 L.Ed. 3 (1947), and cases cited therein. But a penalty reduced to judgment is not a penalty simpliciter. Regardless of whether the judgment itself contains a specific award of interest, once final judgment has been entered in a civil suit in a federal court the prevailing party becomes a judgment creditor and is entitled to post-judgment interest under the mandatory terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1961. See, e. g., United States v. West Texas Cottonoil Co., 155 F.2d 463 (5th Cir. 1946). Since it is settled law that subsequent action by this court in reducing a judgment does not prevent interest from attaching upon the reduced amount from the date of the original judgment (see, e. g., Swartzbaugh Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 289 F.2d 81, 85 (6th Cir. 1961), and cases cited therein), interest should run from June 30, 1969, the date of the district court’s original judgment, 304 F.Supp. 773.
The case is remanded to the District Court with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $113,578.-86, with interest to run from June 30, 1969.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1