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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Trent BOYES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14775.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
July 13, 1962.
Albert D. Cash, Jr., Cincinnati, Ohio, court appointed, for appellant.
Burt Griffin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee, Merle M. Mc-Curdy, U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief.
Before CECIL and WEICK, Circuit Judges, and BOYD, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Appellant, an inmate at Alcatraz, was sentenced in the United States District Court at El Paso, Texas, for bank robberies in the States of Oklahoma, Missouri and Ohio, in violation of Section 2113 of Title 18 U.S.C. The sentence was imposed upon pleas of guilty following the filing of criminal informations in the appropriate districts of the aforenamed states pursuant to Rules 7(b) and 20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Title 18 U.S.C.).
Six years later appellant filed the aforesaid petition to have the District Court in the Ohio case correct alleged errors relative to the violation of his constitutional rights, among others, which allegedly occurred at the time of his guilty plea and sentence. The Ohio District Judge dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction ruling “the only court which can properly pass on this question is the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.”
Appellee moves this court at this time to dismiss the appeal under Rule 39, Title 18 U.S.C., Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, upon jurisdictional grounds.
We think the trial court in denying appellant’s petition aforesaid arrived at the correct result. We feel, however, it should be noted that the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum sought by the appellant was inappropriate for his purpose since the only function of such writ is to cause the removal of a prisoner to the proper jurisdiction for prosecution. Gilmore v. United States, 129 F.2d 199, 202, cert. denied 317 U.S. 631, 63 S.Ct. 55, 87 L.Ed. 509. No prosecution as we understand the record was pending against the appellant in the Northern District of Ohio at the filing of his petition.
The proper procedure for obtaining a hearing as was sought by the appellant was through motion in the sentencing court under the authority of Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C. Relief under this statute is for the sentencing Court. Baker v. United States, 287 F. 2, 5, C.A.9 (1961).
It may be appropriate to note that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered questions similar to those here raised by this identical appellant in an appeal from the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and dismissed same as being without basis or substance. Boyes v. United States, 298 F.2d 828 (February 7, 1962). In the view taken by us in this matter we do not reach the questions discussed in that case.
We agree the Ohio District Court was without authority to entertain appellant’s petition. Motion on the part of the appellee to dismiss this appeal is therefore sustained.
. “Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information
* * * * *
“(b) Waiver of Indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor may be prosecuted by information if the defendant, after he has been advised of the nature of the charge and of his rights, waives in open court prosecution by indictment. * * * ”
“Rule 20. Transfer from the District for Plea and Sentence
“A defendant arrested in a district other than that in which the indictment or information is pending against him may state in writing, after receiving a copy of the indictment or information, that he wishes to plead guilty or nolo contendere, to waive trial in the district in which the indictment or information is pending and to consent to disposition of the case in the district in which he was arrested, subject to the approval of the United States attorney for each district. Upon receipt of the defendant’s statement and of the written approval of the United States attorneys, the derk of the court in which the indictment or information is pending shall transmit the papers in the proceeding or certified copies thereof to the clerk of the court for the district in which the defendant is held and the prosecution shall continue in that district. If after the proceeding has been transferred the defendant pleads not guilty, the derk shall return the papers to the court in which the prosecution was commenced and the proceeding shall be restored to the docket of that court. The defendant’s statement shall not be used against him unless he was represented by counsel when it was made.”
. “Rule 39. Supervision of Appeal
“(a) Supervision in Appellate Court. The supervision and control of the proceedings on appeal shall be in the appellate court from the time the notice of appeal is filed with its clerk, except as otherwise provided in these rules. The appellate court may at any time entertain a motion to dismiss the appeal, or for directions to the district court, or to modify or vacate any order made by the district court or by any judge in relation to the prosecution of the appeal, including any order fixing or denying bail. * * * ”

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