Task: songer_numappel

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.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case. 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.

PER CURIAM.
Defendant Robinson in this case appeals from an order which denied his motion for reconsideration of the reduction of pretrial bail. He had previously been arrested and indicted for possessing, with intent to distribute, one-fourth ounce of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1976). His bond was set for $25,000.
The motion for reduction of bond was heard by the United States Magistrate and denied. The Magistrate found that Robinson had not adequately shown full-time employment or that if released, he might not engage in criminal activity. Robinson had presented evidence that he was engaged to be married, had resided in the Dayton, Ohio, area for seven or eight years and owned a home there, that he had no prior criminal record, and that he was employed to do construction and remodeling.
The United States presented by the assertion of a United States Attorney that Robinson had in the presence of an FBI Agent threatened to “take care” of the witness who had been present at the cocaine distribution incident. On the District Judge’s adoption of the Magistrate’s report, Robinson filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the District Judge, whereupon he filed this appeal.
On the first hearing of this matter, this court remanded the case for a statement of reasons as to why the bail reduction was denied. These reasons having been furnished by the District Judge, the current appeal was submitted on briefs.
On the record as it stands before us, we believe there is need for a further remand to the District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing and determine from evidence presented there whether or not appellant made a threat to commit an assault upon a government witness. Since Robinson contends that he made no such threat, this determination should be made upon the basis of sworn testimony. In the event the physical threat is substantiated, the denial of reduction of bond is affirmed. In the event it is not substantiated, the bond will be reduced to $3,000 cash or security.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 99