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.

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge.
The relator, Jee Gim Bew, a Chinese person, sought admission to the United States as the foreign-bom son of Gee Poy, who it was conceded was a citizen of the United States. The Board of Special Inquiry at Boston refused admission on the ground that he had not reasonably established that he was the son of Gee Poy, and on appeal to the Secretary of Labor its decision was affirmed and deportation ordered. Habeas corpus was prayed for and denied by the District Court of Massachusetts.
The only question before the District-Court was whether the petitioner had been accorded a fair hearing by the immigration officials. This has been so often decided that it is unnecessary to cite any decision in its support. If there were any substantial evidence before the Board of Special Inquiry which would support its finding, which has been affirmed by the Secretary of Labor, the District Court was without jurisdiction.
The petitioner was examined at length in regard to the village in China from which he claimed to have come, as was also an alleged brother and the father. Both the alleged brother and father testified that there was a fishpond in front of this village. The petitioner testified that there was no pond in front of or near it and never has been.
There were some discrepancies between the testimony of the applicant and other witnesses with reference to the location of the houses in the village and their occupants, and as to whether the brother did anything after he left school; but the material discrepancy related to the location of a pond in front of the village. The petitioner is 27 years of age and claims to have lived all his life in the village in China from whieh he claims to have come and in front of which, or near which, he testified there is no fishpond; but both the alleged father and brother positively testified that there is one there, and the alleged brother drew a diagram representing its location and showing that an unobstructed view of it could be had from the front of the house where the relator claimed to have lived.
Upon this record.we cannot say that the action of the immigration officials was arbitrary or entirely unsupported by substantial evidence.
The decree of the District Court is 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