Task: songer_appfiduc

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 "fiduciaries". 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.

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.
Allie Rae Fouts, as executrix of John Franklin Bell, sued upon a policy of war risk insurance, alleging that the United States, acting through the Veterans’ Bureau, had rejected her claim, and that a disagreement thus arose. A special plea was filed that no appeal had been taken to the Director of the Veterans’ Bureau and no denial of the claim had been made by him or any one acting in his name. On a trial of the plea a verdict was directed sustaining it, and the suit was dismissed. This appeal followed.
The evidence in the bill of exceptions consists mostly of extracts from letters,. no signatures being shown, which are recited to have passed between “the Veterans’ Bureau’’ and “the counsel for plaintiff.” They show that the executrix made claim under the policy, that the Bureau wrote that only a part of the insurance which had been revived under section 305 of the World War Veterans’ Act, 38 USCA, § 516, was of force, and that it went to a relative of the soldier who was named sole legatee in his will rather than to the executrix. No formal judgment is shown. Thereafter “the Veterans’ Bureau” was requested by “Plaintiff’s counsel” to “review the insurance feature of this ease” with additional proofs. The Bureau replied, stating that the request would be acted on by the Insurance Council, and sent a blank to be filled out touching the deceased, which blank was executed and returned. No further action on the claim appears to have been taken before suit was filed. Plaintiff’s counsel was representing both the executrix and the legatee, and he argues that the request for review was made in behalf of the legatee, with the sole purpose of getting allowed to her the face of the policy rather than the lesser amount awarded; and that he understood the letter stating that the executrix took nothing to be a final rejection of her claim. This contention can hardly be sustained, seeing that the record expressly states that plaintiff’s counsel made the request for a review, not that the counsel for the legatee did. But, taking his contention as correct, the executrix none the less sued prematurely. The administration of the War Risk Insurance is committed to the Veterans’ Bureau, and the Director is to decide all questions arising about it. 38 USCA § 426. Suit is permitted only after a disagreement is reached; and, because of dispute as to what would constitute a disagreement, it was enacted July 3, 1930, 46 Stats. 993 (38 USCA § 445), that “the term ‘disagreement’ means a denial of the claim by the director or some one acting in his name on an appeal to the director.” There is nothing in this record to show that any appeal was ever taken to the Director of the Veterans’ Bureau, or that he or any one acting for him had rejected the claim of the executrix. The Director is not mentioned in the pleadings or in the evidence as we have it. Congress could so condition ’ the consent of the United States to be sued as to require a precedent appeal to the Director and adverse action by him. The suit may not be maintained otherwise. United States v. Densmore (C. C. A.) 58 F.(2d) 748; United States v. Collins (C. C. A.) 61 F.(2d) 1002; Griffin v. United States (C. C. A.) 60 F.(2d) 339; United States v. Peters (C. C. A.) 62 F.(2d) 977; Straw v. United States (C. C. A.) 62 F.(2d) 757. It is the general rule that in suing a government administrative remedies must be exhausted before appeal is made to the courts. Error is not made to appear.
Judgment affirmed.

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

Answer: 1