Task: songer_r_natpr

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 "natural persons". 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.

ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from -a decree in the Supreme Court of the District enjoining appellants from interfering with and directing the payment to appellee of $906.67, withheld by appellants from appellee’s pay as a naval officer to reimburse the government for alleged overpayments to appellee of dependency allowances.
Three items are involved. $320, allowances paid monthly in 1925-1926 and stopped in 1927. Appellants concede that the decision in McCarl v. Cox, 56 App. D. C. 27, 8 F.(2d) 669, is controlling as to this item; and hence, to that extent, the decree is correct.
As to the $369, appellants contend that, because this item of allowances was paid during the period July 1, 1926, to March 31, 1927, and was stopped monthly over the period from April 1,1927, to June 30,1927 (in other words, during the same fiscal year), there is no pay stoppage. This amount was actually paid appellee monthly by the disbursing officer as allowances, and was thereafter deducted from his pay. It is of no significance that the deduction occurred in the same fiscal year. The decision in the C'ox Case, therefore, is controlling as to this item.
The $226.67 item was paid monthly in 1923. On July 11, 1927, the Navy Department wrote appellee, in part as follows: “The Department considers that you should promptly refund the sum of $226.67, the amount disallowed in the accounts of Lieutenant Jones, Supply Corps, by reason of increased allowances paid to you on the ground whieh you have failed satisfactorily to substantiate and whieh you have since rejected in favor of a totally different ground. You will endorse hereon, with a prompt return of papers, your intentions relative to refunding the above sum of $226.67, for which sum the department considers for the reasons above stated, you are justly indebted to the Government.”
On August 6, 1927, appellee responded, in part as follows:
“My account is now being cheeked $449 by Lieutenant W. Elliott (SC), U. S. N., on account of the General Accounting Offiee in certificate No. K-8452-N dated May 18,1927, * * * and I have not drawn any money since May 31st, excepting subsistence allowance.
“I am willing for eheekage to be made, however, I do not acknowledge’that I was not entitled to the credit.”
Thereupon the Department acted upon the written consent that eheekage should be made, and the account was adjusted accordingly.
It was not until about 29 months later that appellee sought the aid of a court of equity to undo what he had in effect consented should be done. We think he waited too long. .Such injunctive relief as he seeks is awarded to the diligent, and not to those guilty of unreasonable delay. Had appellee desired to withdraw his consent, he should have done so promptly, instead of waiting until after the Department had adjusted his account in accordance with his consent.
It results that the deeree must be modified so as to exclude this item therefrom. As modified, it will be affirmed.
Affirmed, as modified, v

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

Answer: 1