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:
ROBESON v. ACHESON.
No. 11030.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit
Argued March 13, 1952.
Decided Aug. 7, 1952.
Mr. Nathan Witt, New York City, of the Bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with who Messrs. James A. Cobb, George E. C. Hayes, George A. Parker and Barrington D. Parker, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., and Ross O’Donoghue, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee. Mrs. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty. at the time the record was filed, also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, PRET-TYMAN and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Robeson, plaintiff below, appeals from dismissal of his complaint, on motion, by the District Court. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment and injunction decreeing in substance that appellant’s passport is still valid, that appellee Acheson, Secretary of State, the defendant below, has without right cancelled it, and that appellant is entitled to leave the United States without interference by appellee.
The complaint, filed Deecmber 19, 1950, recites, inter alia, that appellant, a citizen of the United States, then held a passport which would by virtue of a renewal remain valid until January 25, 1961; that appellee Acheson, through his agents, demanded appellant surrender his passport; that the passport was invalidated, and, on information and belief, that appellee took steps to prevent appellant from leaving the United States. The complaint sets forth respects in which appellee’s conduct is said to have been illegal and to have injured appellant in his travel plans and business activities abroad.
According to the allegations of the complaint the passport expired January 25, 1951, a few weeks subsequent to the filing of the suit. No application for renewal or for a new passport is shown to have been made. Insofar as the passport is concerned it seems clear, therefore, the case has long since become moot. “ * * * There being no subject matter upon which the judgment of this Court can operate, the cause is moot.” Amalgamated Ass’n of St. Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Emp. of America Div. 998 v. Wisconsin Board, 1951, 340 U.S. 416 at page 418, 71 S.Ct. 373, 375, 95 L.Ed. 389. We should not, under settled principles, decide the important issues sought to be litigated when there is pending before the Secretary no application for a new passport and the one said to have been unlawfully invalidated has expired by its own terms.
The entire case fails by reason of the situation above described. It is not saved by the allegations that the Secretary has taken steps pursuant to Section 53.5 of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations to prevent appellant’s departure from the United States. It is true the alleged actions of the Secretary in this respect, like those dealing with cancellation of the passport, are characterized as depriving appellant of his right to travel abroad, and as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of due process of law. But the complaint indicates that the steps said to have been taken to prevent appellant’s departure are incident to invalidation of his passport. Nowhere among the allegations of his travel plans or desires or business activities dependent upon his travel is there a suggestion of plans, desires or activities which would take appellant to any place outside the United States where under existing law and regulations a passport might not be required. A fair reading of the complaint discloses no case, independent of the consequence of invalidation of the passport, of alleged infringement of rights by restraint upon appellant’s freedom of movement beyond the United States. Copies of communications between him and the State Department, attached as exhibits to the complaint, and his reference to § 53.5 of the regulations, the terms of which are outlined in the last paragraph of n. 1, supra, emphasize that his dispute with the Department is radicated in the passport issue. Since that issue falls as moot the whole case falls with it as presently set forth in the complaint.
Reversed and remanded to be dismissed as moot.
. Peacetime control over passports is vested in the Secretary, under regulations prescribed by the President. 44 Stat. 887 (1926), 22 U.S.C.A. § 211a (1946). Regulations under this provision are found in Sections 51.1 — 52.9, 22 Code Fed. Regs. Parts 51 and 52 (1949 ed.). Under 22 U.S.C.A. §§ 223 and 224 (1946), 40 Stat. 559 (1918), the President is authorized to restrict departures from the United States in time of actual war or during the national emergency proclaimed May 27, 1941, by Proclamation No. 2487, 6 Fed.Reg. 2617, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix note preceding § 1. Though, this emergency was terminated April 28, 1952, and though the war has ended, the powers referred to have been extended. The current extension appears in Public Law 450, approved July 3, 1952, 68 Stat. 330,' and also in Public Law 414, Immigration and Nationality Act, Sec. 215, enacted into law over Presidential veto, June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 190. Under these powers the Secretary has promulgated regulations which include Section 53.5, 22 Code Fed.Regs. Part 53 (1949 ed.), referred to in the complaint.
Section 53.5 permits (a) the Secretary to prevent departure or entry of a citizen if he does not bear a passport or other specified document notwithstanding he may be destined for or arriving from a place outside the territory of the United States for which a valid passport is not required in the regulations; further, (b) the Secretary is permitted to prevent temporarily departure or entry of a citizen who bears a valid passport or other specified document or is destined for or arriving from a place outside United States territory for which a valid passport is not required under the regulations of said Part. Provision (b) is not involved by the complaint and in any event appears inapplicable. Provision (a) refers to a situation where a person does not have a passport even when usually one would not be required. Thus again it appears that the prevention of appellant’s departure, alleged to have been taken pursuant to Section 53.5, is due to absence of a passport even though we were to assume he might desire to go where a passport is ordinarily unnecessary, under § 53.2, 22 Code Fed.Regs. Part 53 (1949 ed.).
. See 22 Code Fed.Regs. § 53 (1949 ed.).

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