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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Russell ROSS, Appellant.
No. 81-1483.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 1981.
Decided Dec. 11, 1981.
Robert V. Broom, Omaha, Neb., argued, Susan Jacobs, Lincoln, Neb., for appellant.
Thomas D. Thalken, U. S. Atty., D. Neb., Sally R. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., D. Neb., argued, Lincoln, Neb., for appellee.
Before HEANEY and STEPHENSON, . Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable John W. Oliver, United States Senior District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
STEPHENSON, Circuit Judge.
This is a direct appeal from the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court on a guilty plea entered by appellant Ross. Ross questions the validity of his plea, the sentencing process, and the sentence imposed. We affirm.
Ross pled guilty to Count I and Count VIII of a nine-count indictment. Count I charged defendant Ross and defendant Thomas Couceiro with conspiring to transport in interstate commerce stolen motor vehicles and to sell the same, knowing they were stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2312, 2313. Count VIII charged Ross and Couceiro with interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, a 1977 Holiday Rambler motor home, knowing it was stolen in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2312.
Ross initially contends that he was not advised of the effect of a guilty plea to Count I, the conspiracy count. However, the record discloses that the district court orally addressed the defendant and explained the elements of the conspiracy offense. The record also discloses that prior to addressing the defendant, pursuant to Rule 11, the court requested the defendant to fill out a four-page “petition to enter a plea of guilty” containing forty-three questions relating to the material covered by Rule 11: The court indicated that this was particularly desirable because the plea was being entered pursuant to a plea agreement. The questionnaire was signed by Ross and contained the certificate of counsel that he had read and fully explained to the defendant the allegations contained in the indictment, the maximum penalty for each count, and that defendant was offering to plead guilty to Counts I and VIII.
Thereafter the district court addressed the defendant informing him of the nature of the charges, the maximum penalty provided by law on each count, and, after appropriate inquiry, determined that the plea was voluntary and that no promises had been made with respect to the penalty that might be imposed. The transcript of the change of plea hearing covered thirty-six pages and shows that Rule 11 was fully complied with.
The remaining claims of Ross pertain to alleged errors in the sentencing process and the sentence imposed. He claims his sentence was too severe because the court apparently took into consideration more than one overt act charged in the conspiracy count despite the court’s statement that only one “specification” [overt act] is all that was needed in finding guilt. Ross infers this from the court’s observation at the time of sentencing that “this isn’t a petty misdemeanor of any nature at all. It is a matter of substance. And it appears to have been a rather widespread operation from the matters that are contained in Count I to which you have pled guilty.”
In United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446-47, 92 S.Ct. 589, 591, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), the Supreme Court stated:
[A] trial judge * * * has wide discretion in determining what sentence to impose * * * [and] may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of information * * * or the source from which it may come, (citations omitted) * * * [A] sentence imposed by a federal district judge, if within statutory limits, is generally not subject to review, (citations omitted).
In the instant case, the trial judge imposed a sentence of four years on Count I to run consecutively to a term of imprisonment that defendant was then serving in the state of Utah and four years on Count VIII to run concurrently with Count I. However, execution of the sentence on Count VIII was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years to commence upon his release from imprisonment on Count I. The sentence was well below the maximum of ten years imprisonment that could have been imposed. The claim that the sentence was excessive' is devoid of merit.
Appellant further contends that the court improperly considered prejudicial statements set out in the presentence report, made by the sentencing judge in Utah at the time of the Utah sentencing and statements made by the probation officer in Utah. These contentions are likewise without merit. Judge Van Pelt made it abundantly clear that he would not consider the judge’s statement in Utah because he did not have before him the facts which caused the judge’s comment. Furthermore, Judge Van Pelt stressed the fact that his sentence was based on defendant’s conduct and his previous record (two felony convictions).
Appellant’s additional contentions that the court erred in denying a continuance so he could present evidence regarding his past employment and that appellant was suffering from hypoglycemia (low blood sugar condition) are likewise without merit. The information concerning appellant’s employment the last ten years was cumulative and the court also advised appellant, if he had anything further to offer, he could present it in a motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35. The record also discloses that defendant’s counsel informed the court of defendant’s medical condition. Defendant does not contend his health affected the validity of his plea. Instead he asserts that the sentence imposed does not adequately assure that he will get the proper treatment necessary for rehabilitation.
Finally, appellant contends that the court was required to impose a federal sentence to run concurrently with his state sentence. The record discloses that at the change of plea hearing Judge Van Pelt advised defendant, “[d]o you understand that when I say you are going to leave it up to me that maybe you will end up being sentenced in a federal court, sentence to be run when you are through with your state court sentence? Do you so understand?” Ross acknowledged that he understood. Defendant’s contention is frivolous. See Chaney v. Ciccone, 427 F.2d 363 (8th Cir. 1970); 18 U.S.C. § 3568.
We are satisfied the able and experienced trial judge gave careful consideration to the relevant facts in imposing a proper sentence.
Affirmed.
. The Honorable Robert Van Pelt, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
. Appellant Ross was forty-one years old and had the equivalent of four years of college.
. Ross also complained because co-defendant Couceiro pled guilty to five counts and only received a total sentence of six years, one more year than Ross received.

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