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.

WINTER, Circuit Judge:
Kitty B. Roberts, whose husband died of “black lung” in 1971, appeals from an order of the district court sustaining the Secretary of H.E.W.’s denial of widow’s benefits under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (1975). The only dispute between the parties concerns whether Mr. Roberts was a miner within the meaning of the Act and the pertinent regulations. While the Secretary concluded that he was not a miner and his conclusion was sustained by the district court, we disagree. Thus, we reverse the judgment for the Secretary and remand the case for award of the claimed benefits.
I.
As found by the district court, the claimant meets all of the personal eligibility requirements for a widow seeking benefits under the Act; and it is uncontradicted that her husband was totally disabled from pneumoconiosis at the time of his death. It is undisputed that Mr. Roberts operated a truck hauling coal from the immediate site of its extraction in a strip mine to a tipple where it was processed, graded and loaded into railroad cars for further shipment. This journey took place over dirt roads of the mining company. While the evidence in the record is in conflict as to whether Mr. Roberts was employed by the mine owner or by a trucking company engaged by the mine owner, it is certain that he had engaged in this work for approximately fourteen years and he was exposed to substantial coal dust during the loading and unloading of the truck.
II.
As amended, 30 U.S.C. § 902(d) defines “miner” as “any individual who is or was employed in a coal mine.” In regulations adopted pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 921(a), the Secretary has defined “coal mine” as follows:
an area of land and all structures, facilities, machinery, tools, equipment, shafts, .slopes, tunnels, excavations, and other property, real or personal, placed upon, under, or above the surface of such land by any person, used in or to be used in, or resulting from, the work of extracting in such area bituminous coal, lignite, or anthracite from its natural deposits in the earth by any means or method, and the work of preparing the coal so extracted, and includes custom coal preparation facilities (emphasis added). 20 C.F.R. § 410.110(h) (1974).
Given only the statute and this broad definition of “coal mine,” it would be clear that Mr. Roberts was covered by the Act. He performed the same function, in a strip mine, as do the operators of mechanical conveyances which bring the coal to the shaft and ultimately to the surface in an underground mine. The Secretary concedes that in an underground mine such workers would be covered, and he does not dispute that even though he worked aboveground, Mr. Roberts was continuously exposed to the hazard of coal dust.
The Secretary argues, however, that Mr. Roberts was excluded from the definition of “miner” by virtue of 20 C.F.R. § 410.110(j), which reads:
“Miner” or “coal miner” means any individual who is working or has worked as an employee in a coal mine, performing functions in extracting the coal or preparing the coal so extracted.
The Secretary contends that this section encompasses those workers engaged in extraction and preparation, but not persons engaged in on-site transportation.
We disagree with the Secretary’s interpretation and application of his regulation. In agreement with the administrative law judge, we think that Roberts’ functions were part of the process of “extracting the coal and preparing the coal so extracted.” The coal was not extracted and prepared until it was taken from the mine to the place where it was processed and graded so as to be in condition for delivery to distributors and consumers. We add also that, if given the effect advocated by the Secretary, 20 C.F.R. § 410.110(j) would add a further qualification to the clear language of 30 U.S.C. § 902(d). Since the statute is unambiguous in extending coverage to “any individual who is or was employed in a coal mine,” and its legislative history makes plain that a coal mine may be aboveground as well as underground, 20 C.F.R. § 410.110(j) would be in direct conflict with the governing statute and, hence, invalid.
Despite the conflict as to whether Mr. Roberts was employed directly by the coal mine operator or by a trucking subcontractor, we think it is indisputable that he was employed in a coal mine. The Secretary’s own regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 410.110(h), indicates that the boundaries of the mine extend at least to the point where the coal is processed and loaded for further shipment.
The judgment of the district court must be reversed and the case remanded for entry of an order directing that Mrs. Roberts be awarded benefits under the Act.
Reversed and remanded.
. Section 402 of the Act, as amended, defines pneumoconiosis as “a chronic dust disease of the lung arising out of employment in a coal mine.” It is significant in light of our view of the merits of the case that, before amendment, the disease was defined as one “arising out of employment in an underground mine (emphasis added).”
. Prior to amendment, § 902(d) defined a miner as one “employed in an underground coal mine” (emphasis added).
. Given the amendments to § 902 referred to in n. 1 and n. 2, the Secretary’s all-encompassing definition — “upon, under, or above” — is manifestly in accord with congressional intent.

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

Answer: 2