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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
WESTMORELAND SPECIALTY CO. v. BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
No. 5345.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
March 14, 1932.
Geo. E. H. Goodner, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Wm. Cutler Thompson, C. M. Gharest, and Stanley Suydam, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
GRONER, Associate Justice.
This is a tax case and involves the question whether petitioner is entitled- to deduct from gross income for the calendar year 3921 the sum of $30,800, representing the par value of 308 shares of its capital stock, which were issued to its president in January, 1922, in accordance with an agreement claimed to,have been made Juno, 1921.
The appropriate statute is 234 (a) of Revenue Aet 1921 (c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 254). The statute provides: “That in computing the net income * * * there shall be allowed as deductions: (1) All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation Eor personal services actually rendered. * * ¡F »
Article 107 of regulations 62 provides: “Bonuses to employees will constitute allowable deductions from gross income when such payments are made in good faith and as additional compensation for the services actually rendered by the employees, provided such payments, when added to the stipulated salaries, do not exceed a reasonable compensation for the services rendered.”
Petitioner was a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture of glass specialties, and had an authorized capital stock of one thousand shares of the par value of $100 each. Until 1922 only 850 shares were issued, and these were divided as follows: George R. West, who was president, 327 shares; Charles II. West, secretary treasurer, 192 shares; Ira F. Brainard, 331 shares. Dissatisfaction arose over the conduct of the business, as a result of which George R. West resigned as president in May, 1921, and Charles H. West was elected Ms successor, and Brainard, who had not hitherto been connected with the corporation in an active way, though at all times a director, was elected secretary treasurer for the balance of the year. As a result of George West’s resignation, the principal responsibility of management fell on his brother, Charles West, and the latter expressed a disinclination to discharge this responsibility on the same basis of compensation as formerly. Brainard, recognizing the necessity of meeting this objection, agréed with Charles West that the corporation would acquire the 327 shares of stock belonging to George West for the sum of $60,000, and that the unissued 150 shares of authorized stock would be issued, and the aggregate of these two blocks of stock divided in such way as to give Charles H. West and Brainard each a half ownership in the stock of the corporation.'
. Charles West, in his testimony, describes the transaction as follows: The substance of the agreement entered into at the time his brother retired from the presidency was that witness - and Mr. Brainard would issue stock so as to equalize the ownership of the company between them, so that from that time on they would be equal partners, so to speak, in the business, although in corporate form.
The plan was consummated by the purchase by the corporation of George West’s shares of stock for $60,000, of which 308 shares were later issued to Charles West and 19 to Brainard, who also received the 150 shares of newly issued stock. Petitioner claims- the right to deduct the par value of the shares transferred to Charles West, in other words, the sum of $30,800, as compensation for services for the year 1921. The Board held against the claim, and we think correctly.
We start, of course, with the presumption that the Commissioner’s determination was correct and that the findings of fact by the Board of Tax Appeals are not the subject of review if based upon substantial evidence. The question then is, Was the payment or transfer of stock made' as compensation for personal services, and were such personal services actually rendered ?
The board determined that the treasury stock was transferred for the purpose of effecting an equal distribution of appellant’s authorized capital between Charles H. West and Brainard, and, inf eren tially at least, that this was done to retain Charles West’s services to the corporation indefinitely and in effect to make him an equal partner in the business. If the Board'» conclusion in this respect is correct, it forecloses the question, for the reason that, if the motive of the payment was as found by the Board, the claim now made is untenable. We have, therefore, been at some pains to examine the evidence. Petitioner’s books show that Charles West, first as secretary treasurer and later as president, received in the year in question salary of $9,000 and a cash bonus of $3,000, and that Brainard, as secretary and treasurer for the last seven months- of the' year, received salary of $5,250 and a cash bonus of $3,000. There is nothing else on the books of the corporation to show ’either by resolution or payment any further compensation to Charles H. West. The $60,000 transaction resulting in the acquisition of the stock, the most of which Charles West received, was recorded in the books of the corporation as a capital transaction. The entries in relation to the purchase of the stock and the proper accounting method to balance the books was the subject of a. correction in the accounts made by an expert called in specifically for that purpose, and there is nothing either in the original entry or in the subsequent correction which- indicates that the purchased and reissued capital stock was in compensation of the officers, or any of them, unless the resolution directing the issuance of the stock to Charles West in consideration of “one dollar and other valuable consideration” may be so called; but when it is considered that at the same meeting Brainard, who admittedly performed no special services, was voted 169 shares, likewise in consideration of $1, and when the evidence of the parties themselves, all of which supports rather than refutes the Board’s theory, is also considered, the conclusion is inevitable that the transaction is precisely as found by the Board, and that the present 'claim is purely an afterthought, which it would be grotesque to adopt.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0