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:
McCLEARY v. HUDSPETH, Warden.
No. 2386.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 24, 1941.
C. W. Schwoerke, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan. (Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
McCleary was charged by two indictments returned in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania with violations of the postal laws. He entered pleas of guilty to the several counts thereof and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 25 years.
After serving part of the sentences imposed, petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas alleging that he was denied the assistance of counsel for his defense in the criminal proceedings and that the sentences imposed were void. The court found that petitioner was denied assistance of counsel for his defense in the criminal proceedings, ordered him discharged from the custody of the warden of the penitentiary in which he was confined, and delivered to the United States Marshal for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
A bench warrant was issued on the indictments and petitioner was taken into custody thereon and confined in the Erie and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania jails. On January 12, 1940, the judge of the Pennsylvania Federal Court appointed Lloyd W. Kennedy to act as counsel for petitioner on the trial of such indictments. The court later appointed A. M. Tua as additional counsel for petitioner.
On February 21, 1940, the acting United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania filed a motion to vacate the pleas of guilty theretofore entered by the petitioner to the indictments. A rule was entered upon petitioner and his counsel to show cause why the pleas of guilty should not be declared void and vacated. On February 29, 1940, Kennedy and Tua, after a full hearing on the motion, agreed that such pleas should be vacated and an order was entered vacating the pleas and the judgments entered thereon. Petitioner did not agree to but objected to the order.
On March 18, 1940, petitioner was arraigned a second time on the indictments and entered his plea of not guilty to each of the several counts thereof. On the same day, he was tried on the indictments, being represented at the trial by Kennedy. The jury returned verdicts of guilty. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 25 years and was delivered into the custody of Hudspeth, warden, on March 27, 1940.
Petitioner, in his application for the writ herein, set up the foregoing facts and further alleged that he was being subjected “to double punishment for one offense”; that he was being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment; that he was tried, convicted, and sentenced without due process of law; that he was tried on two indictments at one time before one jury; that a part of the record of the Pennsylvania Federal Court was changed or altered to secure his conviction ; that he was denied compulsory process to procure witnesses for his defense; that he was compelled to be a witness against himself; and that he was not permitted to consult with counsel at every stage of the proceedings. The warden filed an answer to the application in which he set up the facts above stated and denied the foregoing allegations of the application.
A writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum was issued and petitioner was brought before the court and testified at the hearing. He was represented by C. D. Holman, an attorney of Leavenworth, Kansas.
After a full hearing, the court found the facts hereinbefore recited; specifically found that petitioner was competently and capably represented by counsel appointed by the Pennsylvania Federal Court; that petitioner was afforded full opportunity to consult with such counsel; that he was not denied the assistance of counsel for his defense; that he was not denied the right to have witnesses subpoenaed in his behalf; that he did not request the court to subpoena any witness in his behalf at the expense of the government; that he was sane and rational at the time of the trial; and found the issues generally against petitioner. The findings of the trial court are fully supported by the evidence.
Petitioner urges that by subjecting him to trial on the indictments, he was twice put in jeopardy for each of the offenses charged in the indictments, contrary to the provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
In Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461, the court held that compliance with the provision of the Sixth Amendment guaranteeing the accused the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense is an essential prerequisite to a Federal Court’s authority to deprive the accused of his life or liberty; and that where the accused neither has been accorded nor properly waived such right, and the court nevertheless proceeds to sentence the accused, the judgment is void and subject to collateral attack on habeas corpus. By the first proceeding in habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, petitioner obtained a judgment declaring that the sentences imposed on the pleas of guilty were void because the court had proceeded without petitioner having been accorded the right to the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The pleas of guilty having been entered at a time when petitioner had neither waived rtor been accorded his right to the assistance of counsel, the pleas of guilty and the judgments entered were invalid and were properly vacated by the Pennsylvania Federal Court. A proceeding, to constitute a proper basis for a claim of former jeopardy, must be valid. If the proceedings are lacking in any fundamental prerequisite which renders the judgment void, they will not constitute a proper basis for a claim of former jeopardy. Here, the proceedings, including the pleas of guilty, the judgments entered, and the sentences pronounced, lacked essential validity and it follows that they cannot constitute a proper basis for a claim of former jeopardy.
Where a prisoner obtains his discharge on habeas corpus on the ground that the sentence under which he is being held is illegal, he is precluded on resentence on a prior valid conviction or upon due conviction from urging the objection of double jeopardy.
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas had authority to direct the return of the petitioner to the Pennsylvania Federal Court for further proceedings on the indictments.
The fixing of penalties for crimes is a legislative function. What constitutes an adequate penalty is a matter of legislative judgment and discretion, and the courts will not interfere therewith unless the penalty prescribed is clearly and manifestly cruel and unusual. Schultz v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 73 F.2d 668, 670.
Where the sentence imposed is within the limits prescribed by the statute for the offense committed, it ordinarily will not be regarded as cruel and unusual.
The other grounds for the writ set up in the application are foreclosed by the trial court’s findings.
The judgment is affirmed.
Hereinafter referred to as petitioner.
Hereinafter referred to as the Pennsylvania Federal Court.
State v. Heard, 49 La.Ann. 375, 21 So. 632; People v. Casey, 251 App.Div. 867, 297 N.Y.S. 13, 14; State v. Bartlett, 181 Iowa, 436, 164 N.W. 757, 758, L.R.A.1918A, 1179; People v. Cuatt, 70 Misc. 453, 126 N.Y.S. 1114, 1118; May v. State, 110 Ark. 432, 162 S.W. 43, 44; Commonwealth v. Roby, 12 Pick., Mass., 496, 501.
Bryant v. United States, 8 Cir., 214 F. 51, 53; King v. United States, 69 App.D.C. 10, 98 F.2d 291, 294, 295; Murphy v. Massachusetts, 177 U.S. 155, 162, 20 S.Ct. 639, 44 L.Ed. 711;
In the latter case, the court said:
“The plea of former jeopardy or of former conviction cannot be maintained because of service of part of a sentence, reversed or vacated on the prisoner’s own application.”
Biddle v. Thiele, 8 Cir., 11 F.2d 235, 237; Price v. Zerbst, D.C.Ga., 268 F. 72, 74, 75; Bryant v. United States, 8 Cir., 214 F. 51, 53; In re Medley, Petitioner, 134 U.S. 160, 174, 10 S.Ct. 384, 33 L.Ed. 835; In re Bonner, Petitioner, 151 U.S. 242, 259, 260, 14 S.Ct. 323, 38 L.Ed. 149.
Moore v. Aderhold, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 729, 732, and cases there cited.

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