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.

PARKIER, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding. Petitioner was indicted with her husband for violation of section 329*6 of the Revised Statutes (26 USCA § 404). The indictment contained two counts, one charging removal of distilled spirits on which the tax had not been paid, the pther charging concealment after removal. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges contained in the indictment and on May 16, 1931, was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in the Federal Industrial Institution for Women at Alderson, W. Va). She entered upon the service of the sentence, but later filed with the judge below a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which she alleged that she had been misled into entering the plea of guilty, that the judge in sentencing her had taken into consideration a charge of crime of which she had been acquitted and that the sentence imposed upon her was not authorized by statute and constituted cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Constitution (Const. Amend. 8). After a hearing had upon the return to the writ, the judge denied the prayer of the petitioner to be released from custody; and from the order discharging the writ she prosecutes this appeal.
It is clear that in habeas corpus proceedings the court cannot consider such matters as tho fact that petitioner was misled into entering a plea of guilty, that the judge in imposing punishment improperly considered a charge of crime of which petitioner had been acquitted, or that tho punishment was excessive in view of the facts of the ease. These are matters which must ho availed of in tho original cause. “Upon habeas corpus the court examines only the power and authority of the court to act, not the correctness of its conclusions.” Matter of Gregory, 219 U. S. 210, 31 S. Ct. 143, 144, 55 L. Ed. 184; Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S. 420, 428, 32 S. Ct. 753, 56 L. Ed. 1147. It is well settled that the writ may not be used to correct errors or abuses of discretion in a proceeding in which petitioner has been sentenced; and that nothing in the habeas corpus proceeding can be used to add to or amplify the record in the cause in which sentence was imposed. Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245, 33 S. Ct. 240, 57 L. Ed. 497; Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442, 31 S. Ct. 44, 54 L. Ed. 1101, 21 Ann. Cas. 849; In re Lincoln, 202 U. S. 178, 26 S. Ct. 602, 50 L. Ed. 984; Riggins v. U. S., 199 U. S. 547, 26 S. Ct. 147, 50 L. Ed. 303; Moyer v. Anderson (C. C. A. 5th) 203 F. 881; Clayman v. Smithers (C. C. A. 4th) 18 F.(2d) 955; Riggs v. Workman (C. C. A. 4th) 14 F.(2d) 5, 10.
The only question which we may consider upon this appeal, therefore, is whether the sentence imposed upon petitioner is justified by the record in the original cause; and this question can be disposed of in a few words. The indictment in that case contained two counts charging distinct offenses under the law. Mickle v. U. S. (C. C. A. 8th) 33 F.(2d) 684. And cf. Albrecht v. U. S., 273 U. S. 1, 47 S. Ct. 250, 71 L. Ed. 505; Clayman v. Smithers, supra. As a sentence of three years was authorized under each count, the term of five years imposed was within the discretion as to punishment vested by the statute in the District Judge. The fact that a penalty in double the amount of tho tax was not imposed did not render the judgment void, nor was it a matter of which petitioner could complain. Jordan v. U. S. (C. C. A. 4th) 60 F.(2d) 4, decided June 30, 1932,
The principal contentions of petitioner are that the punishment imposed was out of proportion to the offense charged, that her plea of guilty was entered under a misapprehension, and that the trial judge improperly considered, in fixing punishment, a charge of crime of which she had been acquitted. But, as stated, these are matters which the court cannot consider on habeas corpus. "When not properly presented in the original cause, they are matters which can be considered only by the executive on an appeal for clemency.
The order denying the discharge on ha-beas corpus will be affirmed.
Affirmed.

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