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:
ROWLAND v. STATE OF ARKANSAS.
No. 14050.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Feb. 2, 1950.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, 1950.
C. Floyd Huff, Jr., Hot Springs, Ark. (E. C. Thacker, Hot Springs, Ark., on the brief), for appellant.
Ike Murry, Attorney General, State of Arkansas, John Williams, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeff Duty, Assistant Attorney General, -and R. J. Glover, Prosecuting Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District, Hot Springs, Ark., filed brief for appellee.
Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and WOODROUGH and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is taken to reverse a judgment o-f the District court which dismissed appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant was “out on bond”, free of any actual restraint and not in custody of any person served with notice at the time he petitioned for habeas corpus and at the time of the trial upon his petition, and the court after full hearing reached and declared its conclusion that the writ was not available to -a person so situated. The reasons for decision and the statutes and precedents relied on by the court are fully set forth in its Memorandum Opinion filed in the case and reported at 85 F.Supp. 550.
Appellant contends that the trial court should have followed a precedent set in the Seventh Circuit in Mackenzie v. Barrett, 141 F. 964, 5 Ann.Cas. 551, where it was held that “one under arrest, but at large on bail is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, the same as if the arrest was accompanied by actual imprisonmentbut as was pointed out by the trial court in its opinion 85 F.Supp. at page 555, that case “may well have been overruled” by the later decision •of the same court in United States ex rel. Walmer v. Tittemore, 61 F.2d 909, 910, in which it is held “before one can successfully seek a writ of habeas corpus, he must be actually restrained.”
We think that no error in the proceedings and judgment has been shown and that the statutes, precedents and reasoning set forth in the opinion of the trial court fully sustain its judgment. It is accordingly 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