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:
Antonio Cabrita MEALHA, Appellant, v. Edward J. SHAUGHNESSY, Appellee.
No. 147, Docket 23320.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Jan. 3, 1955.
Decided Feb. 23, 1955.
Nemeroff, Jelline, Danzig & Paley, New York City, Aaron L. Danzig, New York City, of counsel, for appellant.
J. Edward Lumbard, U. S. Atty., for Southern Dist. of N. Y., New York City, for appellee. Harold R. Tyler, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Lester Friedman, Atty., Immigration and Naturalization Service, New York City, of counsel.
Before L. HAND and MEDINA, Circuit Judges, and DIMOCK, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment, summarily dismissing a petition filed under § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act to review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, for the third time denying a motion for a rehearing on a warrant ordering the deportation of the plaintiff to Portugal. The following facts appeared without contradiction. The plaintiff is an alien seaman born in Portugal, who arrived at New Orleans on March 12, 1952, was admitted for a shore leave of 29 days, and overstayed his time. He was arrested on a warrant of deportation on July 23, 1952, was given a hearing on September 19, 1952, and, after being found deport-able, was allowed a voluntary departure. By a series of applications to the Board of Immigration Appeals for review, he succeeded in putting this off for eighteen months, during which time he married and begot two children. He complains that at the hearing he was not represented by an attorney, and that he was examined through an unsworn interpreter, who was, however, an official of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Further, that he did not understand the questions that the interpreter put to him, because they were not in Castilian Spanish with which alone he had any familiarity, and that very little.
We pass the question whether § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, § 1009, Title 5 U.S.C.A. permits the review of an order of deportation entered before the Immigration Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq., went into effect on December 24, 1952. Arguendo, we will assume that it does. We held long ago that it is not necessary in such proceedings that the interpreter should be sworn, and the Regulations in existence at the time of the hearing, § 151(2) (h), C.F.R. 8, provided that any “employee of the Service” might act. The plaintiff argues that these decisions, and presumably the regulation as well, have been overruled by Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103; and that point also we will take in his favor arguendo, because the “operative facts” are not in dispute. In his reply affidavit he did indeed say that he had not understood the question, when he was asked whether he was not the person described in the certificate of his entry; but he nowhere denies that he was, and the certificate was itself competent and decisive. It left no issue to be decided, for it then appeared that he was deportable as an alien seaman who had overstayed his leave. The argument appears to be that, once it was shown that at the hearing he was deprived of some right guaranteed by the Constitution, he became as of course entitled to another hearing; because no findings made at such a hearing may stand, and the district court is without power to substitute findings of its own. This misconceives the function of such constitutional rights. If their supposed invasion could in no way have contributed to elicit those facts on which the legality of his deportation depended, it is irrelevant. To hold otherwise would be to hold that he got a right of residence which the law denied him because he was denied the right to dispute what was incontestably proved by evidence adduced without any shadow of illegality.
There remains only the complaint that he was deprived of the privilege of “preexamination” given by §§ 142.1 and 142.2 of Regulations 8. The answer is that in September, 1952, when he was excluded, he was ineligible for that privilege. Concededly he was not within subdivisions (a) or (b) of § 142.1, for they applied only to aliens who had been within the United States for a year or more. Subdivision (c) did give the privilege in an “exceptionally meritorious case”; but there was not a syllable in the answering affidavit that even intimates the existence of anything that could have made his case “exceptionally meritorious,” or indeed meritorious at all. Besides, § 142.2 lays down four conditions of eligibility for “preexamination,” of which the fourth is that the alien shall be able to obtain “the prompt issuance of an immigration visa * * * for permanent residence in the United States.” It is true that the respondent’s moving affidavit said nothing about the Portuguese quota, but his brief tells us that it has been filled for many years. The alien’s affidavit did not suggest the contrary, and in any event it is a matter of public record of which we can take judicial notice.
The appeal is utterly without merit; and contains nothing to commend it to our sympathies except for the fact that, taking advantage of the delays that he secured, this man while here has begotten two children, whose nurture his deportation may very seriously impair. This result of his deplorable and irresponsible conduct we are powerless to prevent; and, so far as he is himself personally concerned, it would certainly not dispose us to make an exception, even though it were in our power to do so.
Judgment affirmed.
. § 155 (c) (1), Title 8 U.S.Code, now 8 U.S.C.A. § 1254.
. Lee Sim v. United States, 2 Cir., 218 F. 432; Jeung Bow v. United States, 2 Cir., 228 F. 868.
. §§ 14, 15, Act of May 26, 1924, 43 Stat. L.162, now 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252.

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