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:
RADICH et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 13, 1927.
No. 5004.
1. Criminal law @=692 — Defendant, not questioning validity of arrest before trial, could not question admissibility of evidence on ground of irregularity of arrest (Pen. Code Ariz. 1913, § 858).
In prosecution for violation of National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 1013814 et seq.), defendant, who before trial took no step by motion or otherwise to vacate order of arrest, 'held not in a position to urge that evidence seized at time of arrest was inadmissible because arrest was made during nighttime on a misdemeanor warrant, and hence illegal under Pen. Code Ariz. 1913, § 858.
2. Intoxicating liquors @=236(9)— Proof of sales of liquor separately to two persons at same time and place will sustain conviction on charge of several sales.
Proof of sales of intoxicating liquor, made separately to two persons, each of whom pays for the liquor, about the same time and place, wiE sustain conviction on a charge of several sales.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona; William H. Sawtelle, Judge.
Jack Radieh and C. P. Drapieh were convicted of violating the National Prohibition Act, and they bring error.
Judgment affirmed.
Jay Good, of Globe, Ariz., for plaintiffs in error.
John B. Wright, U. S. Atty., of Tuseon, Ariz., and George R. Hill, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Phoenix, Ariz.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUD-KIN, Circuit Judges. ' '
HUNT, Circuit Judge.
Radieh and Drapieh were jointly charged with violation of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 1013814 et seq.). General demurrers to the information were overruled. Pleas of not guilty were entered, and after trial both were convicted under counts charging sales and possession of intoxicating liquor at Globe, Ariz. Drapieh was also convicted un-. der an information charging him and Radieh with maintaining a common nuisance. Radich was acquitted of that charge. The two informations were consolidated for trial. In due course defendants sued out writs of error. Since submission of the ease, Drapieh has died, so we shall consider only the assignments affecting Radieh.
The evidence wds that the Bankers’ Garden in Globe, Ariz., was a resort kept by Drapieh for the sale of soda water, beer, cigars, etc.; that Radieh worked in the place and sometimes paid the rent; that each sold whisky at various times, as charged in the counts under which they were convicted; that on March 20, 1926, about 9 o’clock in the evening, a deputy United States marshal went to the Bankers’ Garden to serve a bench warrant issued for the arrest of the two men by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; that at the time of the arrest Drapieh was in the saloon behind the bar; that Radieh, who was then in the rear of the room, immediately came to the front and was arrested; that the marshal had no search warrant; that just as Drapieh was arrested he stooped over, whereupon a prohibition agent, who was with the marshal, stepped up to the bar, saw a pint bottle of whisky, reached over, picked it up, and handed it to the marshal.
In presenting the evidence for the prosecution, counsel offered the bottle of liquor in evidence. Defendants objected on the grounds that the evidence obtained was not sufficient to justify “a night search warrant, and that the officers were not legally on the premises in their service of a warrant for a misdemeanor in the nighttime.” The court overruled the objection and admitted the liquor. Defendants excepted. Counsel for the government then stated that he placed no reliance upon seizure by search warrant, whereupon the case was proceeded with. ~
Radieh assigns as error the admission in evidence of the liquor obtaified while arresting defendants during the nighttime on a misdemeanor warrant. We are cited to section 858 of the Arizona statute, which provides that, if’the offense charged is a misdemeanor, an arrest cannot be made at night, “unless upon the direction of the magistrate, indorsed upon the warrant, except when the 'offense is committed in the presence of the arresting officer.” At the outset it seems perfectly clear that the officers had a right to go into the place, whjch was a resort open to all who chose to enter. The bench warrant served was regular on its face, although it had no indorsement or direction of the judge of the District Court specially authorizing arrest at night.
However, Radieh is not in a position to urge that such indorsement was essential to the legality of his arrest, for ho took no step, by motion or otherwise, to vacate the order of arrest until after his plea of not guilty was entered and the trial on the merits was being proceeded with. His position is more unsound than that of a defendant who goes to trial on an information which lacks verification, but who, failing to object before trial on the merits, waives his right to challenge tho sufficiency of the information for lack of verification. Albrecht et al. v. United States, 273 U. S. 1, 47 S. Ct. 250, 71 L. Ed.-; Erie R. Co. v. Reigherd (C. C. A.) 166 F. 247, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 295, 16 Ann. Cas. 459; Simpson v. United States (C. C. A.) 241 F. 842; Jordan v. United States (C. C. A.) 299 F. 298; Merrill v. United States (C. C. A.) 6 F.(2d) 120; Farinelli v. United States (C. C. A.) 297 F. 198.
There was no error in holding that sales of intoxicating liquor, made separately to two persons, each of whom pays .money for the liquor, about the same time and place, will authorize conviction of a charge of several sales.
The judgment is 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: 2