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:
Erika OLUND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Russell L. SWARTHOUT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-1716.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 5, 1972.
S. Allen Early, Jr., Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellant; William A. Bedro-sian, Detroit, Mich., on brief.
George F. Fisk, Berkley, Mich., on brief, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, McCREE, Circuit Judge, and ENGEL , District Judge.
Honorable Albert J. Engel, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in a diversity tort action. We affirm.
Only a brief statement of the procedural facts is required. Erika Olund filed this action against Russell Swar-thout in December, 1964. Swarthout answered in May, 1965, denying the material allegations of the complaint. Some three years later, following the pretrial conference, Swarthout amended the answer to interpose the affirmative defense of release. One week later Olund filed a reply to the amended answer, asserting that the release was void and unenforceable by reason of procurement through fraud, duress, coercion, and undue influence.
In May, 1969, Olund filed an amended reply to the amended answer. Swar-thout filed a demand for a trial by jury as a matter of right on all issues nine days thereafter. He further moved for a jury trial on all issues as a matter of discretion. Following a hearing on the motion, Judge Thomas P. Thornton denied the motion and ordered the entire case tried without a jury.
Tidal to the Court consumed five trial days; conflicting evidence was introduced as to all material issues. Judge Thornton found for plaintiff in the amount of $15,000 compensatory damages. Swarthout appeals, contending that he was deprived of his right to trial by jury and that the verdict was unsupported by the evidence and excessive.
Only the jury trial issue requires extended consideration. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide:
“Rule 38.
“Jury Trial of Right * * *
“(b) Demand. Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue tria-ble of right by a jury by serving upon the other parties a demand therefor in writing at any time after the commencement of the action and not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue. Such demand may be indorsed upon a pleading of the party.”
“Rule 39.
“Trial by Jury or by the Court
•X- -X* -X-
“(b) By the Court. Issues not demanded for trial by jury as provided in Rule 38 shall be tried by the court; but, notwithstanding the failure of a party to demand a jury in an action in which such a demand might have been made of right, the court in its discretion upon motion may order a trial by a jury of any or all issues.”
Before this Court Swarthout contends that the filing of Olúnd’s amended reply gave him ten days in which to demand a jury trial on the issues presented therein and that his demand was served within that ten day period. He further asserts that a jury trial on all issues should have been ordered as a discretionary matter. We disagree with these contentions. The demand for trial by jury was first injected into the case some four and one-half years after the action was commenced, following pleading amendments, extensive discovery, and a pretrial conference. The amended reply introduced no new issues into the action. The issue of release was asserted and joined in July, 1968. Under these circumstances, the demand was untimely. See Western Geophysical Co. of America v. Bolt Assoc., Inc., 440 F.2d 765, 769 (2d Cir. 1971); Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Breslin, 332 F.2d 928, 931 (5th Cir. 1964); 5 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 38.41 (2d ed.); 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, Civil § 2320. Further, we find no abuse of discretion under R. 39(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Swarthout’s contentions that there is insufficient evidence to support the findings of liability, unenforceability of the release signed by Olund, and amount of damages are wholly without merit. We have given “due regard ... to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses” and are unable to say that his findings of fact are clearly erroneous. R. 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Swarthout also urges that the release could not be avoided by Olund without tender of the consideration given in exchange therefor, relying on the law of Florida, where the release was executed. We need not reach this issue. The judgment was offset by the consideration. This court “must disregard any error . . . which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” R. 61, Fed.R.Civ.P.; see 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Further, the issue was not raised below and will not be considered on appeal. See Wiper v. Great Lakes Engineering Works, 340 F.2d 727, 731 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 812, 86 S.Ct. 28, 15 L.Ed.2d 60 (1965).
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