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:
UNITED STATES v. NELSON. SAME v. GIBBS. SAME v. SCHWARTZ.
Nos. 410-412.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 30, 1944.
Jay T. Barnsdall, Jr., of Buffalo, N. Y., for appellants. •
George L. Grobe, U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y. (Austin J. Donovan, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Rochester, N. Y., and Eugene J. Donnelly, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
SWAN, Circuit Judge.
These three appeals were argued together and may be disposed of in a single opinion. Each appellant was convicted under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 311, of wilfully failing to perform a duty required of him under the Act and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. With respect to Nelson and Schwartz the specific charge was failure to report for final type physical examination; in the case of Gibbs it was failure to report for induction for work of national importance.
The facts are very simple. Each appellant duly registered with his local board. From the classification given him by the local board he appealed to an appeal board which reclassified him in 4 E as a conscientious objector. He claims to have been entitled to 4 D classification as a minister of religion. Thereafter a notice was mailed to the registrant directing him to report at a stated time and place for physical examination in the case of Nelson and of Schwartz, and for induction in the case of Gibbs. Each registrant failed to obey the order, was reported as a delinquent, and subsequently was brought to trial upon the indictment under which he was convicted. Nelson received a penitentiary sentence of 3% years; Gibbs and Schwartz one of three years each.
Relying upon a statement in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63.S.Ct. 1178, 1187, 87 L.Ed. 1628, 147 A.L.R. 674, to the effect that “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in * * * religion, or other matters of opinion,” the appellants argue that no board in the Selective Service System had authority to pass upon the appellants’ claim to be ministers of religion; and consequently the orders directing them to report for examination or induction were void. But the case is governed by Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, which holds that the correctness of a board’s classification cannot be questioned in a criminal prosecution for wilful violation of an order of the board.
The only other point urged for reversal is failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each appellant was legally notified to report. The record contradicts this contention. In the case of Nelson, an assistant clerk of the local board testified that the notice to report for physical examination on March 11, 1943 was mailed to him oh February 26th; and Nelson himself admitted on the stand that he received the notice and told the draft board that he was not going to obey it. Similarly in the case of Gibbs the chief clerk testified that on August 3, 1943 Gibbs was ordered to report for work of national importance. Gibbs testified: “My reason for not reporting for work of national importance was that it would remove me from the service which God has placed me in.” Nowhere did he suggest that he had not received the notice. In the case 6f Schwartz the proof was not quite so definite, but it was adequate. A clerk of the local board testified that on September 3, 1943 Schwartz “was ordered to report for a final type physical dxamination”, and she produced a copy of the order which was sent to him. Schwartz did not take the witness stand, but he did cross examine the board’s clerk. In such cross examination he did not ask anything about the mailing of the notice nor suggest in any way that he had not received it.
Finding no error in any of the three trials, we affirm the judgments.

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