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.

SPRECHER, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 set forth that he had been sentenced to a term of four years pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a)(2) on January 7, 1972 in the Eastern District of Michigan for conspiracy to defraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Petitioner alleged that he appeared before the United States Parole Board in April 1972, as a result of which his custody was continued to June 1973. He appeared before the parole board in June 1973, as a result of which his custody was continued to the expiration of his sentence. In August and again in September 1973, he made written application to the board requesting reasons for the denial of parole, which applications were denied.
On June 19, 1974 petitioner, then a prisoner at the United States penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, filed his petition, complaining that he had “been denied the Judicial and Legislative intent of a 4208(a)(2) sentence by respondents by being precluded from parole eligibility and by being denied the respondents’ reasons for such action.”
The petition was considered with those of several other federal prisoners making similar claims by the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, which entered judgment on August 2, 1974 granting relief to five other prisoners but dismissing petitioner’s petition. The parole board appealed the cases of the five successful prisoners to this court, which affirmed on November 18, 1974 in Garafola v. Benson, 505 F.2d 1212 (7th Cir. 1974), holding that the parole board is required to give meaningful (as opposed to summary) consideration to parole in a § 4208(a)(2) case before the expiration of one-third of the prisoner’s sentence. The relief granted in Garafola to those prisoners who had not received the required timely meaningful consideration was either a second, but this time meaningful, consideration by the parole board, or failing that, their release on parole. The petitioner here did not cross-appeal in Garafola.
In its August 2, 1974 order, as it related to petitioner here, the district court dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner “has already had a second hearing in June 1973, following his imprisonment January 7, 1972 for a four-year term” and that the “June 1973 hearing came at approximately one-third of the term, so no further hearing is required.” The petitioner has appealed that order.
After filing his notice of appeal, petitioner was released on mandatory release on October 9, 1974 and his supervision ended on July 10, 1975.
Insofar as the record before us indicates, the petitioner received the same kind of a second “meaningful” consideration by the parole board in June 1973 that this court mandated in Garafola with the exception that in Garafola, we directed the board to furnish the prisoners reasons if parole was denied.
In King v. United States, 492 F.2d 1337 (7th Cir. 1974), we held that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires the United States Parole Board to furnish reasons for denial of parole. In United States, ex rel. Richerson v. Wolff, 525 F.2d 797 (7th Cir. 1975), we held that minimal due process requires the giving of reasons for the denial of parole.
In Bailey v. Holley, 530 F.2d 169 (7th Cir. 1976), we held that neither King nor Richerson will be applied retroactively but will be applied only to parole denials which occur after the respective dates of those decisions. Inasmuch as King was decided on March 13, 1974 and Richerson was decided on November 20, 1975, neither of them applies to petitioner’s June 1973 parole consideration. Garafola was also, of course, decided after petitioner’s June 1973 consideration (November 18, 1974) and it would not apply retroactively to that consideration.
Petitioner contends that he is nevertheless entitled to some relief. He says the “record may be set straight, to show his rehabilitation, or his sentence itself may be altered to reflect such by the sentencing court.” This argument is an attempt to review the correctness of the parole board’s decision, which we cannot do. Buchanan v. Clark, 446 F.2d 1379, 1380 (5th Cir. 1971). In any event, the petitioner’s release from supervision rendered moot any questions of other relief. The Supreme Court held that parole board matters can no longer be questioned once the prisoner has been completely released from supervision, in the absence of “demonstrated probability” that he will return to parole board jurisdiction. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350, 44 U.S.L.W. 3372 (1975).
We affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing the habeas corpus petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

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