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.

PER CURIAM.
June 13,1942, Mrs. Feick filed this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against her husband, seeking custody of their two infant children and reasonable maintenance for them and for herself. A judgment entered January 11, 1944, as slightly modified June 30, 1947, by a supplemental judgment, awarded custody to the wife except for fifteen days in each July. Maintenance was denied the wife but the husband was ordered to pay her $150.00 per month for the support of the children, except for any period they were in his custody or in summer camp at his expense.
October 12, 1953, Mrs. Feick asked the District Court to hold her former husband in contempt for failing to make the required payments during the period from September 1, 1951, through October 31, 1953. A hearing on the motion was had February 15, 1954. Feick’s defense was that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the 1944 maintenance order and that in any event the 1946 Connecticut divorce had extinguished it and had rendered nugatory the supplemental order of 1947. He seems to have offered no other excuse for not making the payments required by these orders, which he admits he did not make.
The district judge rejected— we think correctly — Feick’s legal argument of non-liability for the accrued maintenance. Having done so he had no alternative but to find him guilty of contempt. Cf. Kephart v. Kephart, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 193 F.2d 677.
Queen v. Queen, 1950, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 157, 188 F.2d 624, cited by the appellant, is not in point. There the contempt order before us was based on an award of maintenance made after the parties had been divorced. Here the contempt order was expressly based on the maintenance order of January 11, 1944, and the Connecticut divorce was granted in 1946. Moreover, the monetary awards of the 1944 order and its undertakings with respect thereto were expressly continued “in full force and effect” by the 1947 order which dealt only with altered vacation custody of the minor children.
Notwithstanding his guilt of contempt, our reading of the record convinces us that Feick is an affectionate, indulgent father who is keenly interested in the education and welfare of his children. He has been generous in his expenditures in their behalf. The mistake he made was in deciding for himself how he should provide for his children instead of obeying the District Court’s orders. We said in the Kephart case that a husband may not avoid the consequences if he takes the law into his own hands and ceases to obey a maintenance order. Feick did not apply to the District Court for a modification of the orders and continues to be bound by them.
In the circumstances we consider the District Court’s sentence of one year in jail as too severe and shall direct that the term of imprisonment be reduced to thirty days, unless the appellant sooner purges himself of contempt.
Judgment affirmed as modified.
. In tbe meantime the parties had been divorced by the decree of a Connecticut court, which is not attacked.
. In oral argument Feick’s counsel conceded the correctness of the trial judge’s finding that appellant had failed by $3,-230.00 to pay the maintenance instalments which had become due by November 1, 1953, under the District Court’s former orders.

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