Task: songer_appfiduc

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 "fiduciaries". 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.

MANTON, Circuit Judge.
William J. Lansley was adjudicated a bankrupt on May 15, 1924. Under section 14 of the Bankruptcy Aet (Comp. St. § 9598) he had one year within which to apply for his discharge. During this period he was examined as to his assets under section 21a of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9605). On May 17, 1925, he petitioned for an extension of his time to apply for his discharge. The reasons advanced for his being unavoidably prevented from having applied for his discharge theretofore are stated to be that “he was unavoidably prevented from filing an application for a discharge within twelve months after such application for the following reasons: He was without sufficient funds to pay the expenses of such proceeding and the counsel fees incident thereto, it appearing that the trustee or some of the creditors intend to oppose the application; he also has been out of the jurisdiction almost continuously since the adjudication, except during such times as the attorney for the trustee desired to examine him concerning his property; such absence being tor the purpose of attempting to secure employment, which efforts up to the present time have been without success; and finally, he is informed that the attorney for the trustee desires to continue the examination of your petitioner under and pursuant to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Aet; that such examinations have been had from time to time over the period of the entire year since the adjudication and are still pending; that he desired to file such application and secure a discharge.”
They are insufficient on their face and do not support the order entered thereon. The statute permits an adjournment of the time only when it is made to appear to the judge before whom the application comes that the bankrupt was unavoidably prevented from filing his application within such time. See section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act. The excuse that he was without sufficient funds to pay for the expense of such proceedings and the counsel fees incident thereto is based upon no pleaded facts to establish such a conclusion. Such an excuse, as stated, is insufficient, for the reason, which we recognize in Re MacLauchlan (C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 534, “that drafting and filing a petition for discharge is a simple, short, and inexpensive affair.” Indeed, it appears in this record that the bankrupt advanced $200 to his attorney for services in this proceeding, $1,000 in the litigation in Delaware, and $500 for the litigation in New Jersey, all arising out of his present bankruptcy. The reason stated, that he was without the jurisdiction of the court almost continuously since the adjudication, is answered by the fact that he alleges he was within the jurisdiction many times, owing to his being examined in the bankruptcy proceedings. This excuse is insufficient in law. In re Balzer (D. C.) 12 F.(2d) 94. Assuming he was without the jurisdiction of the court, he might have signed his petition without the state, and have presented it within the statutory period. The reason advanced that the attorney for the trustee desired to continue his examination from time to time over the entire year does not appear to have been a prevention.
The court has power under section 15 of the Bankruptcy Aet (Comp. St. § 9599) to revoke discharges within one year after they are granted, but apart from such statutory power it has the inherent power to vindicate its own rights and to protect against deception and fraud. In re Louisville Nat. Banking Co., 158 F. 403, 85 C. C. A. 513; In re Applegate (D. C.) 235 F. 271; In re Goldenberg & Halbert (D. C.) 286 F. 292; In re Bimberg (D. C.) 121 F. 942. The order of June 15th was improvidently granted, and it follows that the order of August 28, 1925, falls with it and must be vacated, unless the petitioners were guilty of laches on this motion.
But there were no laches. The discharge was granted August 28, 1925. The attorney for the petitioners, by affidavit, states that he did not learn of it until the end of September, 1925. The bankrupt was without the jurisdiction of the court and could not be found. On January 25, 1926, the proceeding to set aside the discharge was started by the service of an order to show cause upon the bankrupt’s attorneys. It was objected that the bankrupt was not personally served. He was located in Florida and substituted service, both personal and by registered mail, was then made, while he so remained.
.Such delay, under these circumstances, does not amount to laches, which would require us to deny the present application.
Orders reversed.

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

Answer: 1