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:
Sime SORIC, also known as Sam Soric, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. T. FLAGG, District Director, Chicago District, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Department of Justice, Defendants-Appellee.
No. 13600.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
May 23, 1962.
Nathan T. Notkin, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
James P. O’Brien, U. S. Atty., John Powers Crowley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel, for appellee.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and SCHNACKENBERG and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.
Sime Soric, also known as Sam Soric, plaintiff, has appealed from an order of the district court granting the motion of W. T. Flagg, district director, Chicago district, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Department of Justice, defendant, for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff’s petition [complaint].
The evidence heard in the administrative proceedings contained in the record shows that plaintiff, a native of Yugoslavia, entered the United States as a crewman at Houston, Texas, on October 2, 1955 and did not depart with his ship. On June 13, 1960 he was ordered deported to Yugoslavia because he overstayed his crewman’s pass. Relying on § 243 (h) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C.A. 1253(h), plaintiff filed a petition to withhold deportation. Section 243 (h) provides:
“The Attorney General is authorized to withhold deportation of any alien within the United States to any country in which in his opinion the alien would be subject to physical persecution and for such period of time as he deems to be necessary for such reason.”
It is plaintiff’s contention that his evidence was to the effect that he was being sought for his anti-Communist views and that he had been denied employment in 1955 and thereafter because of his opposition to Communism and because of his refusal to join the Communist Party.
There is no contention that the Attorney General has acted to withhold the deportation of plaintiff, pursuant to § 243 (h). Indeed there is no contention that plaintiff was not given an opportunity to present his case. But plaintiff seems to insist that the Attorney General abused his discretion in not withholding deportation.
Absent an abuse of discretion, it is well-settled in this court that we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the Attorney General. Kam Ng v. Pilliod, 7 Cir., 279 F.2d 207; Obrenovic v. Pilliod, 7 Cir., 282 F.2d 874; Petrovic v. Pilliod, 7 Cir., 282 F.2d 877; and Batistic v. Pilliod, 7 Cir., 286 F.2d 268.
However, plaintiff argues that he has proved that he would be subject to economic persecution because of his political opinions and that such persecution is equivalent to physical persecution within the meaning of the Act.
The government agrees that economic sanctions so severe as to deprive a person of all means of earning a livelihood may amount to physical persecution.
There is evidence that he was working in Yugoslavia “on board the ship” and that because he was “anti-Communist” “they make it difficult for you and they eventually discharge you from any work” and that plaintiff testified
"I do not know why they didn’t take me off before, but they would take off everybody that would not join their party and listen to them and agree with them. They did not care whether we could make a living or not.”
We agree with the Government that, read in context, this evidence indicates that employment on a ship was being referred to. It does not follow that all types of employment were closed to him.
While standing alone this was a showing that there was discrimination in employment upon ships (which understandably might sail from Yugoslavian territory), there was no evidence of a denial of all types of employment. We agree that this evidence does not constitute proof of physical persecution, as those words are used in the Act. To the same effect, see Diminich v. Esperdy, 2 Cir., 299 F.2d 244, cert. denied 82 S.Ct. 875; and Blazina v. Bouchard, 3 Cir., 286 F.2d 507, cert. denied 366 U.S. 950, 81 S.Ct. 1904, 6 L.Ed.2d 1242. We find nothing in Dunat v. Hurney, 3 Cir., 297 F.2d 744, which is inconsistent with our holding in this case.
We, therefore, conclude that no error of law was committed at the administrative levels nor by the district court, that no showing of abuse of discretion by the Attorney General has been shown, and accordingly the order from which this appeal was taken must be affirmed.
Order 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