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, Appellee, v. Ronald Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant.
No. 90-1847.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 12, 1990.
Decided Jan. 4, 1991.
James Wyrsch, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Ronda Reems, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before BEAM, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOODS, District Judge.
The HONORABLE HENRY WOODS, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Ronald Lee Williams, was charged in a three count indictment with bank robbery, using a firearm in the commission of a felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was convicted on each count. He was sentenced by the district court to 360 months in prison on the bank robbery charge, to run consecutively with a five year sentence on the use of a firearm charge, but concurrently with a life sentence on the felon in possession charge. This appeal followed. We affirm.
Appellant’s first point on appeal is a challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment. It is his position that the indictment fails to state an offense because each of the three counts lacks an allegation that he acted with criminal intent. We disagree. “An indictment is not fatally defective, though it fails to alleged felonious intent, if its wording parallels the statute.” United States v. Love, 815 F.2d 53, 55 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 861, 108 S.Ct. 177, 98 L.Ed.2d 130 (1987). Each Count of this indictment parallels the wording of the underlying statute. For this reason, the indictment is not defective.
Appellant’s second point challenges the adequacy of the instructions. He maintains that the instructions given by the district court were improper because they did not define “knowingly” and “willfully.” However, he has raised this point for the first time on appeal, and “[n]o party may assign as error any portion of the charge ... unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which that party objects and the grounds of the objection,” Fed.R.Crim.P. 30. When no objection is lodged at the district court, we will reverse for plain error only. See United States v. Gantos, 817 F.2d 41, 43 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 860, 108 S.Ct. 175, 98 L.Ed.2d 128 (1987) [citing United States v. McKnight, 799 F.2d 443, 447 (8th Cir.1986)]. “Plain error results when the omitted instructions affect [appellant’s] substantial rights resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Id.
While “knowingly” is included in 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2), dealing with the penalty for one type of violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g), appellant was tried and sentenced under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). This section applies to a person with three violent felony convictions. It does not contain the term “knowingly.” Neither does 18 U.S.C. 922(g) which defines the substantive offense. At any rate, the court in instruction number 14 dealing with 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1) required as its first element “that defendant knowingly possessed a firearm.” (Add. A8). Whether appellant was entitled to the inclusion of this phrase in the instruction is questionable. But it is clear that in this circuit appellant was not entitled to a definition of “knowingly.” See United States v. Smith, 635 F.2d 716, 719-20 (8th Cir.1980), holding that the word “knowledge” did not need to be defined. In the Manual of Model Criminal Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit (1989 Revised Edition) section 7.03, p. 292, it is stated that “the Committee believes that in most cases the word ‘knowingly’ does not need to be defined.” Clearly, it was not plain error to omit such a definition.
The Committee Comments to Instruction 7.02 recommend that an instruction on “willfully” not be used when it does not appear in the statute. “Willfully” is not an element of any of the charged offenses. Given the Committee Comments, an instruction on “willfully” was therefore not required. When the district court failed to give such an instruction, he did not commit plain error.
Appellant’s third point challenges the district court’s refusal to sever the felon in possession charge. Specifically, at the hearing on defendant’s motion, defense counsel argued that the prejudicial effect arose from the fact that the defendant’s three prior convictions were for armed robberies, two of which were armed bank robberies and similar in nature to the present offense. “The decision to sever is within the sound discretion of the [district court] and the denial of a motion to sever is not subject to reversal absent a showing of ‘real prejudice.’ ” United States v. Jones, 880 F.2d 55, 61 (8th Cir.1989) [citing United States v. Adkins, 842 F.2d 210, 212 (8th Cir.1988)]. Appellant can show no real prejudice. The Government read a stipulation which stated that appellant had been convicted of three prior felonies. The stipulation contained no other information. Given the absence of any other information in this stipulation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the felon in possession charge.
Appellant’s final point challenges the constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines. First, he maintains that the Guidelines violate the Presentment Clause of Article I. We have held otherwise. See United States v. Barnerd, 887 F.2d 841, 842 (8th Cir.1989). Second, he apparently maintains that the Guidelines violate his eighth amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment because he was sentenced to life in prison for being a felon in possession. The Guidelines are not unconstitutional for this reason. Admittedly, the sentence is severe. It is, however, within the statutory maximum, and we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. See Castaldi v. United States, 783 F.2d 119, 123 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172, 106 S.Ct. 2897, 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986) (sentence within statutory limit is generally not subject to review unless the district court manifestly or grossly abused its discretion).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
. In point four of Appellant’s brief, he challenges the impartiality of a juror. The corrected transcript establishes that this juror was not influenced by an outside communication.
. He also maintains that the Guidelines violate his fifth amendment due process rights. This argument is without merit.

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