Task: songer_appnatpr

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 "natural persons". 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.

GODBOLD, Chief Judge:
Petitioner was convicted in Florida of robbery and sentenced to a 199 year jail term. By petition for habeas corpus relief he raises three constitutional issues, described below. A United States magistrate conducted a hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and submitted to the district court proposed findings of fact and a recommendation that the petition be denied. Petitioner did not file with the district court any objections to the proposed findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court, after reviewing a transcript of the hearing, adopted without modification the proposed findings and recommendations.
I.
In U. S. v. Lewis, 621 F.2d 1382,1386 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 935, 101 S.Ct. 1400, 67 L.Ed.2d 370 (1981), this court considered for the first time the effect on the reviewing court of an appellant’s failure to object before the district judge to a magistrate’s proposed disposition of the case. There, the court held that a failure to object is “a waiver of [the] right to appeal,” and dismissed the appeal because appellant had filed no objections. The rule of Lewis was recently reconsidered by Unit B of the former Fifth Circuit en banc, Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982) (Unit B en banc). There we held that an appellant’s failure to object to a magistrate’s report “bar[s] the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the district court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.” Id. at 405, 410 (emphasis added). This holding substantially reworks the rule in Lewis. The failure to object no longer waives the right to appeal but simply limits the scope of appellate review of factual findings to a plain error review; no limitation of the review of legal conclusions results. In Nettles we also decided that any limitation of the right to appeal or the scope of appellate review will not result unless the magistrate informs the parties that objections must be filed within ten days. Id. This requirement of notice was imposed retroactively to cover cases decided under the old Lewis rule.
Sitting as a Unit B panel of the former Fifth Circuit we are of course bound by the Nettles decision. Under it we find that petitioner was not informed that he must file objections to the magistrate’s report or suffer a limitation of the scope of appellate review or the right to appeal. Therefore the appeal may be heard and we exercise a full scope of review.
II.
Petitioner’s first argument is that he was denied fundamental fairness because the prosecution failed to inform him before trial of one of its two witnesses, McArthur Lee Davis. Davis was originally charged as a codefendant, and it is his testimony that was the most damaging.
The prosecution’s failure to comply with state rules requiring the disclosure of witnesses does not warrant habeas corpus relief in every case. See Dillen v. Wainwright, 449 F.2d 331 (5th Cir. 1971). The omission must result in the defendant’s attorney being “manifestly surprised” before it gives rise to a constitutional defect in the proceedings. See Smith v. Estelle, 602 F.2d 694 (5th Cir. 1979). Here, the district court found there was no such surprise. Thomas Hanlon, Hardin’s attorney at the trial, testified at the evidentiary hearing that he knew Davis was under protective custody and suspected that the reason was that Davis might testify. Hanlon considered Davis’s testifying a “distinct possibility” and therefore was not surprised when Davis was called to the stand. We affirm the district court’s conclusion that the failure to disclose Davis as a witness did not violate due process.
III.
Petitioner was not denied due process by the trial court’s failure to order a new trial after Davis made an inadmissible statement concerning an unrelated crime allegedly committed by Hardin. While testifying as to Hardin’s role in the robbery, Davis mentioned that they drove to the scene in Hardin’s stolen car. The prosecution did not elicit the remark. Hardin’s attorney immediately objected and the trial judge struck this portion of Davis’s testimony and admonished the jury not to consider it. No further reference was made to the stolen car or to Davis’s remark.
In these circumstances the trial court’s curative actions were sufficient to preserve a fair trial. Refusal to grant a new trial denies due process only where there is a significant possibility that the prejudicial statement had a substantial impact on the jury’s verdict. U. S. v. Klein, 546 F.2d 1259, 1263 (5th Cir. 1977). In the light of the unequivocal testimony by Davis that he was Hardin’s accomplice in the robbery, and the corroborative testimony from the victim, the district court was warranted in finding that Davis’s remark did not substantially affect the verdict.
IV.
Hardin’s final argument is that he did not have effective assistance of counsel, rendering his conviction in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Hardin testified at the evidentiary hearing that he informed Hanlon, his retained counsel, of two possible witnesses, Sandy Mills and Lisa Parker, who could give favorable testimony, and of Bryant Pridgen who could testify to Hardin’s being at a Jacksonville, Florida bar during the time the crime was committed and who could obtain corroborating witnesses to this alibi. Hardin contends that Hanlon made no efforts to contact these witnesses. Hardin also points out that Hanlon did not object at trial when Davis was put on the stand without notice. Hanlon testified at the hearing to having no recollection whether these names were given to him other than that the name Sandy Mills “rang a bell.” At one point in his testimony Hanlon said that he was informed of a bar in Jacksonville where alibi witnesses might be found but that he told Hardin that he would not travel to Jacksonville on this sparse information. Later in his testimony, however, Hanlon said that he had no independent recollection of a Jacksonville bar ever having been mentioned. Hanlon did remember contacting a female friend of Hardin’s but did not remember her name or where he learned of her. Han-lon’s file on the case contained no names and addresses of potential defense witnesses, but Hanlon made a practice of putting as little information as possible in his files to avoid a chance of disclosure. The district court chose not to resolve the controversy over whether Hardin informed his attorney of possible witnesses and whether Hanlon failed to make efforts to contact them. Instead, the district court ruled that even if Hardin were to establish these facts the entire trial was not rendered fundamentally unfair considering Hanlon’s overall conduct, nor were any alleged deficiencies in Han-lon’s performance sufficient to put the state on notice of any ineffectiveness.
We must remand for further consideration of this issue because the standard for effectiveness of retained counsel applied by the district court, while correct at the time, see Fitzgerald v. Estelle, 505 F.2d 1334, 1335-36 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1011, 95 S.Ct. 2636, 45 L.Ed.2d 675 (1975), has since been modified following the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 343-44,100 S.Ct. 1708, 1715, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). Prior to Cuyler this circuit applied different standards of effectiveness to retained versus appointed counsel. Cuyler holds that there must be a uniform standard. 446 U.S. at 343-44, 100 S.Ct. at 1715. Since Cuyler the Fifth Circuit has adopted the standard that had been applied to appointed counsel and has rejected the standard formerly applied to retained counsel and used here by the district court. Baty v. Balkcom, 661 F.2d 391, 394 n.6 (5th Cir. 1981); Washington v. Watkins, 655 F.2d 1346, 1355 n.13 (5th Cir. 1981). The proper standard is thus whether counsel is likely to render and in fact renders reasonably effective assistance, Kemp v. Leggett, 635 F.2d 453, 454 (5th Cir. 1981), which is a more stringent standard than whether the trial was rendered fundamentally unfair or whether the state was put on notice of counsel’s ineffectiveness.
Because petitioner’s effectiveness of counsel claim potentially depends on unresolved factual issues, we remand to the district court for its initial consideration under the revised standard. We also note that the district court gave no consideration to Hanlon’s not objecting when Davis was put on the stand.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
. “[A] judge may also designate a magistrate to conduct hearings ... of application for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses. ...”
. “Within ten days ... any party may serve and file written objection to [the magistrate’s] proposed findings and recommendations.. .. ”
. The district court decided that “the nature of the issues involved [made] it necessary to review a transcript of [the] hearing in order to decide whether the Magistrate’s report should be accepted or rejected.” See Louis v. Blackburn, 630 F.2d 1105, 1109 n.3, 1110 (5th Cir. 1980) (dictum) (requiring review of transcript because case involved credibility questions critically affecting constitutional rights).

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1