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 ex rel. John SADOWY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward M. FAY, Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 140, Docket 26225.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Nov. 4, 1960.
Decided Nov. 25, 1960.
John Sadowy pro se for appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., of the State of New York, for appellee. Pax-ton Blair, Sol. Gen., Albany, N. Y., Irving Galt, Asst. Sol. Gen., New York City, and George K. Bernstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel.
Before SWAN, CLARK and MEDINA, Circuit Judges.
SWAN, Circuit Judge.
In June 1954 appellant was convicted in the County Court, Queens County, New York, and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a term of imprisonment which he is still serving. On appeal the judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division, People v. Mysholowsky [and Sadowy], 1 A.D.2d 1036, 152 N.Y.S.2d 252. Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied by Judge Fuld, and certiorari was denied Sadowy v. People of State of New York, 352 U.S. 933, 77 S.Ct. 237, 1 L.Ed.2d 168. Appellant also made two unsuccessful applications for writs of error coram nobis. Appeals taken in these two proceedings were dismissed by the Appellate Division for failure to perfect the appeal.
The present petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed in March 1960. Judge Cashin granted petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but denied issuance of the writ with a memorandum opinion which states 189 F.Supp. 151:
“The only ground raised by the petitioner to support the contention that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, is that the trial court refused to allow into evidence at the trial testimony as to the result of 'lie detector’ tests he had taken, which tests would tend to show the innocence of the petitioner”.
Thereafter Judge Cashin issued a certificate of probable cause limited to the ground stated in the above quotation.
The alleged error of the trial court in excluding testimony of an expert as to the pathometer (“lie detector”) tests taken by the defendant, was urged in his state court appeals and in his coram nobis proceedings. It is the only point argued in the present appeal. He relies particularly upon the decision of Judge Colden in Queens County Court who admitted such evidence. People v. Kenny, 167 Misc. 51, 3 N.Y.S.2d 348. This opinion was rendered on March 29, 1938. Subsequently, on November 29, 1938, the Court of Appeals held in People v. Forte, 279 N.Y. 204, 18 N.E.2d 31, 32, 119 A.L.R. 1198, reargument denied 279 N.Y. 788, 18 N.E.2d 870, that such evidence was properly excluded, the record there being “devoid of evidence tending to show a general scientific recognition that the pathometer possesses efficacy.” Appellant contends that in his case, as well as in Kenny’s, adequate proof of the efficacy of the pathometer was presented, and that the Kenny decision should have been followed rather than People v. Forte, although Dr. Burke, who administered the tests to appellant in evaluating the results, mentioned “certain irregularities” in appellant’s responses.
It is not necessary for us to determine, as the defendant asks us to do, whether the Forte case should have been distinguished and the Kenny rule followed by the Queens County Court in his trial. In following Forte and holding the pathometer unreliable, the trial court was merely applying a rule of evidence in accordance with its interpretation of New York law. This raises no federal question. As stated in Buchalter v. People of State of New York, 319 U.S. 427, 431, 63 S.Ct. 1129, 1131, 87 L.Ed. 1492, “the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not enable us to review errors of state law however material under that law.” See also Lisenba v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 219, 226-229, 62 S.Ct. 280, 86 L.Ed. 166.
If it is the defendant’s contention that, aside from its correctness under New York law, the Forte rule deprives him of due process, we agree with Judge Cashin that since the Forte rule is overwhelmingly, if not universally, followed in other jurisdictions, both state and federal, it cannot be said to violate due process, that is, to be repugnant to “the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty,” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 58 S.Ct. 149, 152, 82 L.Ed. 288. The defendant’s constitutional argument is predicated upon his theory of the pathometer’s reliability. Judge Colden’s eloquent opinion in Kenny may well be prophetic of the general recognition which courts may ultimately accord to lie detector tests. They have not yet done so, and any opinion we might express as to the desirability of so doing would be irrelevant. Due process certainly does not require them to do so now. We agree with Judge Cashin’s succinct opinion, 189 F.Supp. 150.
Judgment 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