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.
Floyd A. Beasley, who is now confined in the Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri, filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, on August 9, 1957, alleging that unlawful sentence had been pronounced upon him in February of 1946 because his- conviction had been based upon illegal evidence admitted dur-? ing his trial by the jury which convicted him.
The record shows that the able attorney for the petitioner had, before his trial, filed an elaborate motion to suppress evidence, with an accompanying affidavit. The evidence then referred to was in substance the same as that .referred to in the motion filed in the district court on August 9, 1957. Upon the trial of the case, the motion to suppress was heard and testimony thereon taken outside the presence and hearing of the jury; and the motion was overruled. The defendant testified — upon the hearing of his motion — concerning the search, which he then charged and now insists was unlawful.
In 1948, appellant filed an extended motion in the district court in which he urged again that he was convicted on evidence unlawfully seized. This petition for a new trial was overruled and there was no appeal. It is thoroughly established that a motion to vacate sentence under section 2255 of Title 28 U.S.C., is not to be substituted for a direct appeal.
In overruling the motion to vacate sentence from which appeal has been taken to this court, United States District Judge Boyd in his order stated that the prisoner had been tried by a jury and convicted of using the mails in an effort to extort a large sum of money and that he had been sentenced to a long term and a large fine. The judge stated that his memory of the evidence at the trial was very clear and vivid; that the prisoner had made similar lengthy accusations of unlawful search of his premises by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation previous to his trial, and had fTed a lengthy affidavit and motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The judge stated further in his order that he had let the motion to suppress be brought up by objections to the evidence at the time of the trial and had heard in the customary manner outside the presence and hearing of the jury the details of the alleged unlawful search, including the testimony of appellant. The district court held the evidence to be competent and the trial proceeded, it being ruled that the actions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents in conducting the search were lawful and proper. There was no appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence.
In its order overruling appellant’s motion to vacate sentence, the district court found that the motion on its face and the files and records in the case show conclusively that the prisoner is not entitled to any relief prayed in his motion. After consideration of the briefs, the record, and the record in the original trial of the case, we are of opinion that denial by the district judge of the motion to vacate sentence was correct.
The order of the district court is accordingly affirmed.

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

Answer: 1