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:
Odell FISH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 8852.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 3, 1967.
Thomas Wilson, Oklahoma City, OkL (B. J. Brockett, Oklahoma City, Old., on the brief), for appellant.
James It. Ward, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, ALDRICH , and SETH, Circuit Judges.
Chief Judge of the First Circuit, sitting by designation.
SETH, Circuit Judge.
The appellant was convicted by a jury of violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312, transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce with knowledge that the vehicle was stolen. The appellant on this appeal urges reversal of his conviction on the ground that the evidence was insufficient for submission of the case to the jury. Appellant moved for acquittal or for a directed verdict. These motions were denied by the trial court and the case was submitted to the jury. The jury found the appellant guilty as charged in the indictment.
On the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, the principal point raised by appellant is the evidence of his identity as the person in possession of the car. The record shows that the vehicle in question, a white 1964 Chevrolet Impala, was stolen from a used car lot in Abilene, Texas. Three witnesses testified generally to the following facts: They met a man known to them as “Fred” in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Fred had in his possession a 1964 Chevrolet of the same style and color as the stolen vehicle. It appears that two of these witnesses first met Fred at the Good Shepherd Refuge in Albuquerque, and that the third met Fred and the other two at a blood bank in Albuquerque. After the three witnesses joined Fred in Albuquerque, they all traveled to Socorro, New Mexico, in the 1964 Chevrolet, which Fred drove. Two of the witnesses were apprehended by the police in Socorro, but Fred and the witness Wieland were not. The Socorro police then impounded the 1964 Chevrolet in which the party had been traveling, and the auto was towed to a garage in Socorro.
Witness Wieland testified that he and Fred later broke into the garage and recovered the 1964 Chevrolet, and the two then drove to La Junta, Colorado, and then across Kansas to Kansas City, Missouri. Thereafter Fred and witness Wieland separated. Wieland kept the 1964 Chevrolet and drove to Emporia, Kansas, where he turned himself and the auto in to the local police.
An FBI agent testified that the vehicle identification number of the 1964 Chevrolet recovered at Emporia was the same as that of the 1964 Chevrolet stolen at Abilene, Texas. At the time of the trial two of the witnesses were serving prison sentences, but the third testified that he had never been convicted of any crime.
Although one witness would not positively identify the appellant, Odell Fish, as the man known to him as Fred, he testified that the appellant resembled Fred. Another witness testified that he was under the impression that the auto belonged to Fred, and that Fred said the auto was “taken off a used car lot.” Witness Wieland testified that he was “pretty sure, but not too sure,” that the appellant was Fred. Wieland testified that he and Fred both drove the auto, and that Fred had the 1964 Chevrolet with him when Wieland met him. Wie-land further testified that Fred told him the auto was “hot.” Wieland said that he had done considerable drinking throughout the time he accompanied Fred in the 1964 Chevrolet.
Another witness who was with the group in Albuquerque first testified that he believed that the appellant was Fred, and upon cross-examination testified that the appellant was “the gentleman” (Fred). He also testified that Fred had shown him what may have been- a bill of sale for the 1964 Chevrolet, and that Fred drove the auto.
In addition to the foregoing evidence, an expert witness testified that latent fingerprints developed from maps found in the stolen vehicle upon its recovery at Emporia, Kansas, and from its rear view mirror were identical to the fingerprints of the appellant, Odell Fish.
The record convinces us that there was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could find that the appellant was the man known as Fred, and that the appellant was in possession of a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce with knowledge that it was stolen. Garrison v. United States, 353 F.2d 94 (10th Cir.).
As to the issue of possession, there was evidence that the appellant had the auto in his possession when he met the three witnesses in Albuquerque a few days after the car was stolen in Abilene, and that he drove the auto. Possession may be by one or more persons, Garrison v. United States, supra, and proof of such possession of a recently stolen motor vehicle is sufficient to allow the jury to infer, without more, that the possessor knew the vehicle was stolen, absent a satisfactory explanation. Gregory v. United States, 364 F.2d 210 (10th Cir.); Garrison v. United States, supra; Maguire v. United States, 358 F.2d 442 (10th Cir.); Reese v. United States, 341 F.2d 90 (10th Cir.). Here there is evidence, beyond mere possession, from which the jury could find that appellant knew the vehicle was stolen.
The trial court was correct in its denial of appellant’s motion for acquittal. There was sufficient evidence produced on all the elements of the crime charged for presentation to the jury and for its action.
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