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:
Chester C. WHITE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18402.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Nov. 10, 1966.
James U. Mellick, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
John A. Newton, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee. Richard D. FitzGibbon, U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., with him on the brief.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT and GIBSON, Circuit Judges, and REGISTER, District Judge.
VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal in forma pauperis by Chester C. White, hereinafter called defendant, from final order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion to vacate sentence. Defendant, after a trial by jury in August 1963, was convicted on all four counts of an indictment charging narcotics violations. Being a second offender, defendant received a concurrent sentence of fifteen years upon each count. We affirmed upon appeal. White v. United States, 8 Cir., 330 F.2d 811.
Defendant’s motion now before us is based upon his contention that he was mentally incompetent to understand the nature of the proceedings against him or to assist counsel in the preparation of his defense at the time of his August 1963 trial resulting in his conviction.
Judge Meredith, who presided at the trial resulting in the conviction and who presided at this proceeding, appointed counsel to represent defendant and accorded defendant a full evidentiary hearing at which defendant testified. At the conclusion of such hearing, Judge Meredith made findings of fact concluding that defendant “was mentally competent during the trial and during the time of preparation for trial; that he understood the charges against him and was able to participate in his defense.” Upon the basis of such findings, the court by order filed February 15, 1966, overruled the motion to vacate sentence. On February 17, 1966, defendant’s motion for rehearing was denied. This appeal followed.
Defendant’s competency to stand trial was not raised in the trial resulting in his conviction nor has any certificate contemplated by 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245 been filed. Under such circumstances, jurisdiction existed in the trial court to determine defendant’s competency to stand trial at the time of the trial resulting in his conviction. Wheeler v. United States, 8 Cir., 340 F.2d 119, 121; Taylor v. United States, 8 Cir., 282 F.2d 16, 21; Simmons v. United States, 8 Cir., 253 F.2d 909, 912.
The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court’s finding that defendant was competent at the time of his trial is clearly erroneous. We find the trial court’s findings to be based upon substantial evidence and in no way induced by any erroneous view of the law. We affirm.
We have carefully examined the entire record of the original trial and of the hearing upon the motion. We deem it unnecessary to discuss the evidence in detail. Defendant’s claim of incompetency is based upon his contention that he was a narcotics addict and that at the time of his trial he had received through fellow inmates some narcotics but not enough to satisfy his habit and as a result he suffered withdrawal symptoms during the trial. Defendant testified that he frequently requested narcotics from the prison doctors but that all such requests were denied.
Defendant’s army records, dating prior to 1944, were received in evidence and show some narcotics addiction and contain a classification, “Constitutional psychopathic state, inadequate personality manifested by drug addiction.” The record shows no extensive hospital confinement.
Defendant at the trial resulting in his conviction on direct examination testified that he had been in jail continuously since his arrest in March 1963 up to the time of his trial in August 1963, and that he had had no narcotics since his arrest. At the hearing upon the motion, defendant testified that he had illegally received narcotics frequently while in jail in exchange for cigarettes and small favors and that he had not given such testimony at his trial because of fear of reprisal by his fellow prisoners. Such testimony in no way is corroborated. The trial court committed no error in refusing to credit such testimony given by an interested witness which was directly opposed to the testimony he had previously given.
The standards to be applied in determining the issue of competency to stand trial are well-stated by Judge Blackmun in Feguer v. United States, 8 Cir., 302 F.2d 214, 236 to 240. As there stated, “Presence of a mental illness does not equate with incompetency to stand trial.”
In United States v. Tom, 2 Cir., 340 F.2d 127, the court accepted defendant’s statement that he was taking narcotics at the time of his trial and in the course of its opinion upholding the trial court’s determination of competency, states:
“But the record does not show, and we have no reason to believe that the use of narcotics per se renders a defendant incompetent to stand trial. Whether it had such an effect in this case was an issue of fact, as to which the petitioner had the burden of proof.” 340 F.2d 127, 127-128.
See Johnston v. United States, 10 Cir., 292 F.2d 51.
Included in the evidence supporting competency is the testimony of defendant’s court-appointed counsel who in effect stated that he had numerous extended conferences with the defendant prior to the trial and that as a result of his observations of defendant on such occasions and at the trial, he was of the opinion that defendant was competent to stand trial.
The medical staff at Leavenworth Penitentiary, who examined defendant at the request of his counsel, upon the basis of their examination of defendant in 1965 and after a review of the military record and other medical records presented by the defendant, expressed the opinion that the defendant at the time of his trial was able to understand the charges against him and to assist in his defense.
Judge Meredith observed in his memorandum opinion that the defendant testified at length at his trial on his own behalf and that his answers were responsive and indicated a well-oriented person who is able to give detailed testimony on his own behalf. The judge further observed that he saw no indication that the defendant was under the influence of drugs or suffering from withdrawal.
Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the court committed error in denying his motion.
Affirmed.

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