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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred William STEVENS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-1337.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 3, 1972.
Stephen K. Lester, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wichita, Kan. (Robert J. Roth, U. S. Atty., Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
George E. Grist, Wichita, Kan., for appellant.
Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, and McWILLIAMS and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
BARRETT, Circuit Judge.
Fred William Stevens appeals from his jury conviction on two counts of receiving and storing two stolen automobiles, which had moved in interstate commerce, knowing them to have been stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2313.
Stevens was the owner and operator of the A-l Auto Clinic in Wichita, Kansas. He repaired and painted cars and, on occasions, he bought and sold cars. Stevens was in possession of two cars which were stolen from outside the State of Kansas. These cars were a 1970 Chrysler and a 1970 Thunderbird. There was evidence that Stevens had knowledge of other stolen ears in the Wichita area.
Stevens introduced some evidence which tended to show innocent possession of the stolen vehicles. However, as we said in Chapman v. United States, 443 F.2d 917 (10th Cir. 1971):
“A conviction must be upheld if there is substantial evidence to support it. On appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.” 443 F.2d at 919.
COUNT I
The Avis Rent-A-Car Company rented a 1970 Chrysler, in Houston, Texas, to a man who identified himself as George R. Willis. The car was not returned. Avis notified authorities of its theft on May 4, 1970.
On August 12, 1970 a Wichita police officer noticed this car in front of Stevens’ residence. Two days later, after learning that the car was stolen, he arrested Stevens. The car then bore a Louisiana license plate which had been discarded by a local car dealer.
Stevens first claimed that he purchased this car from a George Willis. He later claimed that he had purchased the car from a man called “Brother Nathan” Shabazz whose real name is James Nathan Taylor. Taylor testified that he had not sold Stevens the car and that at the time of the alleged sale he was probably in the county jail in Kansas City.
COUNT II
Some time during the latter part of April, 1970, a 1970 Thunderbird was stolen from the Ralph Williams’ Ford Agency in Los Angeles, California.
On August 17, 1970, Stevens took this car to a body repair shop in Wichita and left it there for repairs. He claimed that he had purchased the car from one Al Grey. Stevens made application for a car title in Kansas. He used an Oklahoma title certificate to prove his ownership. The title certificate presented by Stevens was one of many blank certificates stolen from the State of Oklahoma. The title indicated that the car had been sold to Stevens and/or the A-l Auto Clinic by a Melvin Saffier.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
Stevens contends that the lower court erred in: (1) admitting the testimony of the police officers concerning the information he gave them about other stolen cars; and (2) failing to sustain his motion for acquittal because of insufficient evidence.
Following his arrest and in the presence of his lawyer, Stevens answered questions posed by law officers pertaining to other stolen cars in the Wichita area. Stevens waived his Miranda rights before answering these questions. During the trial questions were asked of two Government witnesses concerning this information given by Stevens. They testified that after Stevens gave them the descriptions and locations of several other cars which he believed to be stolen, their follow-up investigations disclosed that this information volunteered by Stevens was true. Several stolen cars were then recovered.
It is fundamental that evidence of other crimes may be admitted if it tends to show guilty motive, intent, knowledge, identity, plan, scheme or course of conduct of the accused. United States v. Eagleston, 417 F.2d 11 (10th Cir. 1969); United States v. Coleman, 410 F.2d 1133 (10th Cir. 1969). Although the testimony had substantive value under the Eagleston and Coleman cases, it may have been subject to procedural complaint on the ground that it was conclusory. However, Stevens did not object to its admission nor did he move to strike or for a mistrial. He cross-examined the Government’s witnesses concerning this testimony. Where no objection is made to the admission of evidence, the Court of Appeals will not reverse unless substantial justice requires. Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339, 78 S.Ct. 311, 2 L.Ed.2d 321 (1958) ; Tapia v. Rodriguez, 446 F.2d 410 (10th Cir. 1971); Findley v. United States, 362 F.2d 921 (10th Cir. 1966).
In determining whether the “clear error” rule should be invoked, the entire record must be reviewed and considered. Adams v. United States, 375 F.2d 635 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 880, 88 S.Ct. 117, 19 L.Ed.2d 173 (1967) ; Jennings v. United States, 364 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1030, 87 S.Ct. 760, 17 L.Ed.2d 677 (1967). And in weighing whether there was a clear error the most significant factor to be considered is the strength of the case against the defendant. United States v. Williams, 445 F.2d 421 (10th Cir. 1971). The evidence against Stevens is substantial; the testimony concerning other stolen vehicles could not have had a significant effect in influencing the jury verdict. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946).
We affirm.

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