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:
Gertrude HUNDLEY, Appellant, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 13787.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 19, 1959.
Andrew J. Palmer, Paducah, Ky., for appellant.
James G. Wheeler, Paducah, Ky., (Thomas J. Marshall, Jr., Paducah, Ky., Joseph H. Wright, Gen. Counsel, Ill. Cent. R. Co., Chicago, Ill., John W. Freels, Chicago, Ill., Stites, Wood, Helm & Peabody, Louisville, Ky., on the brief), for appellee.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Judge, and SIMUNS and WEICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, an employee of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, was a telephone operator on a switchboard at Fulton, Kentucky. Because of technological improvements, the Railroad discontinued its switchboard at that point and as a result six telephone switchboard operators, including appellant, were furloughed, and were advised that they could have their names placed on the telephone switchboard operators’ seniority roster at either Paducah, Kentucky, Louisville, Kentucky, Jackson, Tennessee, or Chicago, Illinois; and that those not desiring to avail themselves of this opportunity would continue in the status of furloughed employees on the Fulton, Kentucky, switchboard operators’ seniority roster, subject to provisions of notification. All telephone operators affected by the discontinuance of the Fulton, Kentucky, switchboard, with the exception of appellant, elected to, and did take, work at Paducah, Kentucky, or Jackson, Tennessee. She did not elect to make such change and, since that time, has been in the status of a furloughed employee on the telephone operators’ switchboard seniority roster at Fulton, Kentucky.
Appellant thereafter brought suit in the state court in Kentucky alleging that she had been wrongfully discharged from her position by the railroad. In her complaint she set forth that, during her employment, she was a person for whose benefit the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Railroad; that under the terms of such agreement she had certain seniority rights; that, up to the time of her discharge, she had performed her duties and complied with all the terms and conditions of her employment under the agreement; that the Railroad had discharged her and breached the agreement between it and the Brotherhood; that, thereby, it refused to allow appellant the benefits of seniority rights as provided in the agreement; that because of said wrongful dismissal and because of the violation of the agreement in denying appellant her rights under the seniority provisions therein, the Railroad had prevented her from performing her services as a telephone operator, although she had been and was, at that time, ready and willing to perform said services, and had continued to perform all the terms and conditions of her employment under the Collective Bargaining Agreement; and that the Railroad, in discontinuing the switchboard at Fulton, Kentucky, had violated the agreement. Thereafter, upon application of the Railroad, the suit was removed to the District Court. The Railroad subsequently filed answer, defending on the ground that appellant was seeking relief in violation of the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Railroad and the Brotherhood; that the Collective Bargaining Agreement provided, in part, that claims and grievances involved in a decision by the Railroad’s highest officer designated to decide disputes, arising out of claims and grievances should be barred, unless within nine months from the time of such officer’s decision, proceedings were instituted by the employee, claimed to be aggrieved before the appropriate division of the National Railway Adjustment Board, or a system, group, or regional board that had been agreed to by the parties; that the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., in this regard, provided that the disputes between an employee and a carrier growing out of grievances and out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules and working conditions, should be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but that, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the dispute might be referred by petition of the parties, or by either party, to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a full statement of facts and supporting data bearing upon the dispute; and that appellant had not appealed any such claim or grievance to the National Railway Adjustment Board in accordance with the agreement between the Brotherhood and the Railroad, or in accordance with the Railway Labor Act, and had failed to exhaust her rights under the agreement between the Brotherhood and the Railroad, as required under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act.
Appellant then asked, and was permitted, to amend her complaint to charge wrongful removal from service rather than wrongful discharge by the Railroad Company. Thereupon, the Railroad Company moved for summary judgment, filing uncontroverted affidavits showing that appellant, as a furloughed employee, was a contributor to the hospital service of the Railroad Company in which she could not participate, unless she were an employee; that she continued the maintenance of her group insurance as a furloughed employee; that she further continued to receive railway passes as an employee of the Company after she had been furloughed; and that she had continued to file notification of her address after ninety days as required by the rule of the agreement between the Railroad Company and the Union representing its employees, in order that she might retain her seniority with the Company.
On the hearing of the motion for a summary judgment, the District Court held that it was admitted by appellant that she had not been discharged from employment; that there was no issue as to the fact that she was, at that time, an employee of the Company; and that the jurisdiction in such a case lies with the National Railway Adjustment Board.
Appellant was not a discharged employee. She remained an employee of the Railroad throughout this controversy. Under the Collective Bargaining, or “Working” Agreement, between the Railroad and the Brotherhood, appellant was represented by the Brotherhood and was subject to the terms of the agreement. Grievances of employees were governed by the agreement, and disputes concerning the rules set forth in the agreement, as relied upon by appellant in this case, were required to be handled through negotiation, and, ultimately, in the process of adjustment, by the National Railway Adjustment Board, in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act.
In the light of the foregoing, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed for the reasons set forth therein by Judge Shelbourne. Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U.S. 239, 70 S.Ct. 577, 94 L.Ed. 795. See Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Day, 360 U.S. 548, 79 S.Ct. 1322, 3 L.Ed.2d 1422; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Price, 360 U.S. 601, 609-614, 79 S.Ct. 1351, 3 L.Ed.2d 1460; Rose v. Great Northern Railway Company, 8 Cir., 268 F.2d 674, 680.

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