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:
William L. HASHWAY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Appellee.
No. 84-1397.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 8, 1985.
Decided Feb. 26, 1985.
William L. Hashway, pro se.
Daniel K. Kinder and Powers & McAn-drew, Providence, R.I., on brief, for defendant, appellee.
Before BREYER, ALDRICH and TOR-RUELLA, Circuit Judges.
BAILEY ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Hashway sued his former employer, Ciba-Geigy Corp., in three counts. The first sought severance pay pursuant to a so-called “Long-Term Disability Plan,” an alleged contract contained in a document entitled “Ciba-Geigy and You.” The second, rather difficult to comprehend, appears to say that he was wrongfully discharged for making a Workers’ Compensation Claim. The third alleges that defendant paid what was due plaintiff under its Investment Savings Plan to plaintiff’s wife instead of to him. Defendant responded with a Motion to Dismiss, allegedly filed pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b). Since the motion included factual grounds set forth in an “incorporated” memorandum of law, we must treat it as a motion for summary judgment under F.R.Civ.P. 56.
The accompanying memorandum of law was replete with references to an affidavit, depositions, and the transcript of a Workers’ Compensation hearing. However, defendant’s submitted appendix on appeal does not contain the affidavit, and contains only portions of the rest. The record does include a copy of a release, and since the court dismissed on that ground alone we will consider it and not the various other defenses defendant sought to raise. On that basis we reverse.
The record shows that, after sustaining an allegedly work-connected injury, plaintiff made claim upon defendant’s Workers’ Compensation carrier. After discharge of his attorney plaintiff entered into a lump sum settlement with the carrier, and executed, subject to approval for fairness by the Commission, the following release.
GENERAL RELEASE
Know all Men, That I, William Hash-way, of the Town of Cumberland, State of Rhode Island, in consideration of the sum of Thirty-Six Thousand ($36,000) ■Dollars to me paid by Ciba-Geigy Corp. and Insurance Company of North America the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do hereby remise, release and forever quitclaim unto said Ciba-Geigy Corp. and Insurance Company of North America its or their successors and assigns, all and any manner of actions, cause of actions, debts, dues, claims and demands, both in law and equity more especially, all claims for compensation due under the Workers’ Compensation Act of the State of Rhode Island, in connection with that certain accident which occurred on the 3rd day of December, 1975, which against said Ciba-Geigy Corp. I, the said William Hashway ever had, now have, or in the future may have for or by reason or means of any matter or thing from the beginning of the world to the day of the date of these presents.
The district court held that, the Commission having approved the settlement, the release was unambiguous, and that if plaintiff made a mistake, the mistake was unilateral, and reformation for a unilateral mistake is impermissible. Boccarossa v. Watkins, 112 R.I. 551, 556-57, 313 A.2d 135 (1973). The court erred in two respects, as examination of the Commission hearing makes apparent.
The fairness hearing was attended by the unrepresented plaintiff, counsel for the carrier, and counsel for the defendant. The following, inter alia, transpired. Commissioner to plaintiff,
Q. “You have settled your case directly with the Insurance Company of North America for $36,000.00?”
A. “Yes.”
Q. “You understand that if you settle this case today for the total sum of $36,-000.00, that you will no longer have any claim for your compensable injury against Ciba-Geigy or Insurance Company of North America?”
A. “Yes.”
Q. “If you have to go back to a hospital or doctor, you have to pay for it yourself?”
A. “Yes.”
Elsewhere the transcript makes clear that, contrary to the statement in the release that the $36,000 was paid by defendant and the carrier, it was paid by the carrier alone, and that plaintiff was so informed. Thus not only was it represented to plaintiff, affirmatively by the carrier and by defendant’s counsel’s silence, that $36,000 was being paid for plaintiff’s Workers’ Comp, claim, but the Commissioner passed upon that figure, not $36,000 minus whatever might be the value of plaintiff’s other, totally independent claims, of a totally unknown amount. For defendant to say now that $36,000 was pro tanto incorrect would be, in effect, a fraud upon the Commission. It should be estopped from so doing.
The same result would be reached by proper application of the doctrine of mistake. A mistake by one party with knowledge thereof by the other is equivalent to a mutual mistake; a party should not be benefitted by a mistake he knew the other had made. Century Plastic Corp. v. Tupper Corp., 333 Mass. 531, 533-36, 131 N.E.2d 740 (1956); 13 W. Jaeger, Williston on Contracts § 1577 (Supp.1984), § 1578 (3d ed. 1970); see Perkins v. Kirby, 39 R.I. 343, 362, 97 Atl. 884 (1916); Votta v. Johnson, 89 R.I. 71, 74-76, 151 A.2d 112 (1959); cf. Vanderford v. Kettelle, 75 R.I. 130, 142, 64 A.2d 483 (1949). Having in mind that plaintiff was told it was the carrier that was paying the money, and that giving the release meant, “You will no longer have any claim for compensable injury,” (emphasis suppl.) it must be manifest that he would be thinking in terms of payment for his injury, and not for some unrelated claims as between himself and his employer. If defendant, at the time, was ignorant of the existence of other claims, there would have been a mutual mistake that should be rectified. If it was aware, and slyly kept silent, the result should be the same. This is not to say that reformation of releases is easily accomplished but the total circumstances here of record are irrefutable, and are peculiarly compelling.
The dismissal is reversed, and, on remand, the release is to be excluded.

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