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.

Opinion:
Denis P. KELLY, Petitioner, v. BUTLER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Board of Prison Managers, Butler County Correctional Institution, Thomas Hutchinson, Warden, Butler County Correctional Institution and their Agents.
Misc. No. 718.
United States Court of Appeals ' Third Circuit.
Submitted on Briefs July 17, 1967.
Decided Sept. 20, 1967.
See also, 3 Cir., 399 F.2d 133.
Denis P. Kelly, pro se.
Charles T. Chew, County Sol., County of Butler, Butler, Pa., for appellee.
Before BIGGS, MeLAUGHLIN and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
This suit seeking money damages only and filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 is before this court on plaintiff’s application, supported by affidavit of poverty, to prosecute an appeal in this court in forma pauperis from an order of the District Court denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis in that court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The District Court opinion stated: “a more detailed pleading is necessary * * * for the purpose of informing any judge to whom resort is had that the claim is not frivolous.”
In view of these allegations, as summarized at pages 1-2 of the District Court opinion, and the terms of the Complaint, the request for permission to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will be granted:
“The plaintiff-petitioner alleges that his federal civil rights were violated by the named defendants in the following particulars: (1) the defendants interfered with and obstructed the plaintiff’s right to access to the Federal courts in that they did not permit him to file legal documents with the United States District Court at Pittsburgh in November 1965 and in February 1966, * * *; and (2) in June 1966, ‘after having been extradicted from the State of New York and returned to the Butler County Correctional Institution’, the plaintiff-petitioner was placed in solitary confinement and subjected to cruel and unusual conditions in order to coerce a guilty plea to the charges lodged against him. The allegedly cruel and unusual conditions which endangered the health and emotional well-being of the plaintiff-petitioner were a steel bunk without a mattress, lack of clothing, no facilities to wash himself, bad food, and foul air. The plaintiff-petitioner was also denied medical care.”
Our recent decision of June 16,1967, in Negrich v. Hohn et al., 379 F.2d 213 (3rd Cir.) is inapplicable to the issue now before this court, since that case involved an appeal from a dismissal of a complaint under the Civil Rights Act on the merits whereas the application now before the court is to proceed in forma pauperis so that the appeal may be considered by this court.
. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Complaint allege that attempts to send legal documents to the courts in November 1965 and February 1966 were denied. Paragraph 11 alleges that in June 1966, when in the Butler County Correctional Institution, “Plaintiff and a co-defendant were placed in solitary confinement under cruel and unusual conditions * * * for several weeks until they succumbed to the coercion of the defendants and/or their agents to submit guilty pleas to charges lodged against them.” Paragraph 12 contains this language, inter alia:
“Plaintiff was stripped of all clothing and was unable even to wash himself. The food served to plaintiff was approximately one third of the daily ration provided for other prisoners, and was so inadequately prepared that plaintiff suffered intermittent bouts of diarrhea and vomitting. After several days the air became unbearably foul, yet defendants and/or their agents refused to open a window despite 100 degree temperature.”
. The situation presented by this record is factually quite different from that before the courts in cases such as Ray v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 263 F.Supp. 630 (W.D.Pa.1967); Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124-125 (3rd Cir. 1950), where equitable injunctive relief was sought and 28 U.S.C. § 1915 not involved; and Gaito v. Prasse, 312 F.2d 169 (3rd Cir. 1963), where equitable injunctive relief was sought. The past conditions about which plaintiff complains may no longer exist so that administrative relief would be useless.

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

Choices:

Answer: 1