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:
Booker T. VAUGHN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15464.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
April 14, 1966.
Booker T. Vaughn, in pro. per.
Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, Lawrence Jay Weiner, Gerald M. Werksman, Asst. U. S. Attys., Chicago, 111., for appellee.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and DUFFY and ENOCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On February 11, 1964, petitioner-appellant, Booker T. Vaughn, after a prior court trial and findings of guilty of violations of the narcotics laws of the
United States, 26 U.S.C.A. § 4705(a) and 21 U.S.C.A. § 174, was sentenced by the district court to imprisonment for a term of eight years. The court stated that insofar as 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2), which allows the sentencing court to fix a prisoner’s eligibility for parole at time of sentencing, was applicable, it was to be applied in the service of the sentence.
18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2), however, was not intended to apply to any offense for which there is provided a mandatory penalty. Sentencing under 26 U.S.C.A. § 4705(a) and 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 is mandatory.
On April 10, 1964, following a motion by Vaughn’s attorney under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., the district court reconsidered and amended the sentence to six years imprisonment.
Vaughn was not before the court at the time of amendment of his sentence. On August 5, 1965, he filed a petition under Rule 35 for correction and reduction of sentence, complaining that contrary to the court’s statements in the original sentencing, he was not eligible for parole.
On October 5, 1965, Vaughn was brought before the sentencing court on a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum so that the terms of his sentence could be made clear to him. The six year sentence given on April 10, 1964 was confirmed at that time. Vaughn appeals from the order confirming his six year sentence.
In his appeal, Vaughn takes the position that the district court’s amendment and correction of his sentence in no way affected the original sentence, insofar as it concerned his eligibility for parole under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2). He argues that when the court reduced his sentence on April 10, 1964, it did not take into consideration its error in the application of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2). Vaughn concludes from this that the original sentence was illegal, that it could not be corrected by a simple reduction, and therefore that the sentence is null and void. Consequently, he requests vacation of the sentence and resentenc-ing.
Rule 35, supra, provides in part: “The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.”
It appears from the record that a correct sentence, without mention of possible parole or of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2) was entered on April 10, 1964. This sentence was confirmed on October 5, 1965, with full understanding that 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2) was not applicable. Vaughn was personally present in court at that time. Since the court could correct the illegal sentence at any time, the court’s simple reduction of sentence, without provision for parole, was sufficient to remove the defect in the original sentence.
In this appeal, Vaughn was proceeding pro se. Accordingly, we ordered the cause submitted on the record and briefs of the respective parties, without oral argument.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. “It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, barter, exchange, or give away narcotic drugs except in pursuance of a written order of the person to whom such article is sold, bartered, exchanged, or given, on a form to be issued in blank for that purpose by the Secretary or his delegate.” 26 U.S.C.A. § 4705(a).
“Whoever fraudulently or knowingly imports or brings any narcotic drug into the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction, contrary to law, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of any such narcotic drug after being imported or brought in, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law, or conspires to commit any of such acts in violation of the laws of the United States, shall be imprisoned not less than five or more than twenty years and, in addition, may be fined not more than $20,000. * * * ” 21 U.S. C.A. § 174.
. “Upon entering a judgment of conviction, the court having jurisdiction to impose sentence, when in its opinion the ends of justice and best interests of the public require that the defendant be sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, may (1) designate in the sentence of imprisonment imposed a minimum term at the expiration of which the prisoner shall become eligible for parole, which term may be less than, but shall not be more than one-third of the maximum sentence imposed by the court, or (2) the court may fix the maximum sentence of imprisonment to be served in which event the court may specify that the prisoner may become eligible for parole at such time as the board of parole may determine.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a).
. 72 Stat. 845, Section 7; P.L. 85-752. Section 7, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (Aug. 25, 1958).
. The sentencing statutes, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7237(b) and 21 U.S.C.A. § 174, call for imprisonment. 26 U.S.C.A. § 7237 (d) also provides in part that “the imposition or execution of sentence shall not be suspended, probation shall not be granted, section 4202 of title 18 of the United States Code shall not apply Ht * # »

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: 0