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:
JACKSON, Albert S., Jr., Appellant, v. The NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO.
No. 86-1544.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) Feb. 19, 1987.
Decided June 30, 1987.
William D. Bubb, Sheldon N. Sandler, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, Del., for appellant.
Ned R. Phillips, Phillips & Cappiello, P.C., New York City, for appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges, and ROTH, District Judge.
Honorable Jane R. Roth, United States District Court Judge for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
In West v. Conrail, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 1538, 95 L.Ed.2d 32 (1987), the United States Supreme Court explained the significance of its decision in DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). In West, the Court noted that DelCostello had filled a gap in federal law by determining that the six-month limitation period prescribed in § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 160(b) (1982), should be applied to hybrid claims under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (1982). The Court went on, however, explicitly to hold that it did not intend, by so filling a gap in the federal law, “to replace any part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with any part of § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act.” West v. Conrail, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. at 1541. Rather, the Court found that “Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court, and Rule 4 governs the procedure for effecting service and the period within which service must be made.” Id. Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules requires that service normally be made within 120 days of filing. Id.
Here, the parties concede that appellant’s cause of action under § 301 accrued on January 7, 1985 at the earliest. The parties also concede that appellant filed his claim on July 3, 1985, in accordance with Rule 3, and within six months of the accrual of his claim. It is also agreed that appellee was served with the complaint no later than July 16, 1985, within 120 days from July 3, 1985, in accordance with Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules, and in accordance with all other provisions of Rule 4. Since West establishes that valid Rule 4 service is valid service for purposes of § 301, and since appellant properly filed under Rule 3 within the DelCostello period, appellant’s claim was not time-barred. See West v. Conrail, 820 F.2d 90 (3d Cir.1987) (per curiam) (service valid under Rule 3 and Rule 4 is valid service for hybrid claims).
Accordingly, the district court’s order, 646 F.Supp. 699, granting summary judgment for appellee because the action was untimely will be reversed in light of West and this case remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.

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