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:
JONES v. UNITED STATES.
No. 4310.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
Dec. 11, 1951.
Elmore A. Page, Tulsa, Okl., for appellant.
John S. Athens, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tulsa, Okl., (Whit Y. Mauzy, U. S. Atty., Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HUXMAN, MURRAH and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.
HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.
An indictment containing two counts was returned against appellant in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, charging him with violating Title 26, U.S.C.A. § 2593(a). Both counts charged that appellant unlawfully acquired quantities of bulk marijuana by transfer, without having paid the transfer tax imposed thereon by Section 2590 (a). Trial was had to the court. He was found guilty on both counts 'and judgment of sentence was pronounced on him.
While appellant denied possession of the drugs, there was substantial evidence supporting a finding that they were in his possession in his room in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It is conceded that he did not have the order form for the possession of such drugs required by 26 U.S.C.A. § 2591. 26 U.S.C.A. § 2593(a) provides that failure, after reasonable notice and demand by the' collector, to produce this order form “shall be presumptive evidence of guilt under this section and of liability for the tax imposed by section 2590(a).”
The sole contention made by appellant on this appeal is that the statutory presumption of guilt attaching from the possession of the drugs does not carry with it a presumption that the crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma and that, before a conviction may be had thereunder, the Government must prove as an essential element the place and venue of the offense. The cases of De Bellis v. United States, 22 F.2d 948, by the Seventh Circuit, and Brightman v. United States, 7 F.2d 532, Graham v. United States, 15 F.2d 740, Cain v. United States, 12 F.2d 580 and Donaldson v. United States, 23 F.2d 178, all by the Eighth Circuit, sustain this contention.
We, however, think that the weight of authority as well as the better reasoning is to the contrary. The cases set out in Footnote 2 all hold that the statutory prima facie evidence clause covers both the fact of unlawful purchase as well as the place of purchase. Casey v. United States, 9 Cir., 20 F.2d 752, was reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States in 276 U.S. 413, 48 S.Ct. 373, 72 L.Ed. 632 and was affirmed. While the decision is not clear cut as to the precise question, we think it warrants the conclusion that the Supreme Court approved the reasoning of the Casey case. It is also of note that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Casey case was handed down four months after the decision in the Donaldson case, the last case on which appellant relies and that, since the decision of the Supreme Court, no decision has followed the earlier holdings by the Seventh and Eighth Circuits. We accordingly conclude that the statutory, presumption applies as well to the place of the commission of the offense as to the commission thereof.
Affirmed.
. “§ 2593 (a) It shall be Unlawful for any person who is a transferee required to pay the transfer tax imposed by section 2590 (a) to acquire or otherwise obtain any marihuana without having paid such tax; and proof that any person shall have had in his possession any marihuana and shall have failed, after reasonable notice and demand by the collector, to produce the order form required by section 2501 to be retained by him, shall be presumptive evidence of guilt under this section and of liability for the tax imposed by section 2590 (a).”
. Casey v. United States, 9 Cir., 20 F.2d 752; Killian v. United States, 58 App.D.C. 255, 29 F.2d 455; Mullaney v. United States, 9 Cir., 82 F.2d 638; Frazier v. United States, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 163 F.2d 817.

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