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. Julio DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 400, Docket 85-1276.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Nov. 7, 1985.
Decided Nov. 21, 1985.
Viktor V. Pohorelsky, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City (Rudolph W. Giuliani, U.S. Atty. for the S.D.N.Y., Stuart E. Abrams, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for appellee.
Jay L.T. Breakstone, New York City (Barry Ivan Slotnick, Slotnick & Cutler, P.C., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Before KAUFMAN and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges, and BONSAL, Senior District Judge.
Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Julio Diaz (“Appellant”) appeals from his conviction following a jury trial before Keenan, J. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The jury found Appellant guilty on four counts: Conspiracy to distribute narcotics (Count One); possession with intent to distribute cocaine (Count Four); receipt of a firearm in interstate commerce by a person previously convicted of a felony (Count Six); and carrying or using a firearm in the commission of a “crime of violence” (Count Five). The district court sentenced Appellant to concurrent terms of four years imprisonment on Counts One,. Four, and Six, and to a mandatory consecutive five-year term of imprisonment on Count Five. We affirm Appellant’s conviction on Counts One, Four, and Six, and reverse Appellant’s conviction on Count Five.
We have carefully considered Appellant’s arguments with respect to his conviction on Counts One, Four, and Six. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, as we must, we conclude that the narcotics agents had probable cause to arrest Appellant at the time they seized his keys and his beeper; therefore his motion to suppress these items was properly denied. Moreover, a review of the record satisfies us that there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant's convictions on these counts.
Count Five charges Appellant with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), which provides:
(c) Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence, including a crime of violence which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device, for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years____ Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person convicted of a violation of this subsection, nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this subsection run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment including that imposed for the crime of violence in which the firearm was used or carried. No person sentenced under this subsection shall be eligible for parole during the term of imprisonment imposed herein.
A “crime of violence” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16 (Supp.1985) as follows:
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
The district court concluded that Section 924(c) applied to narcotics offenses, observing that “firearms are the tools of the narcotics trade” and therefore narcotics offenses involve “a substantial risk that physical force may be used in the course of their commission.” We do not agree.
Section 924(c) applies to an offense that “by its nature” involves a substantial risk of physical force. While the traffic in drugs is often accompanied by violence,, it does not by its nature involve substantial risk that physical violence will be used. An individual selling drugs is committing a felony whether the purchaser is a friend, relative, or stranger, but the sale of itself need not involve a substantial risk of physical force. Such transactions are often wholly consensual, and do not necessarily present threats of physical harm to any person or property.
In a well-reasoned and thorough opinion, United States v. Bushey, 617 F.Supp. 292, (D.Vt.1985), Judge Coffrin concluded that § 924(c) was not intended to apply to narcotics offenses. The court bases its conclusion, inter alia, on (1) the plain language of the statute; (2) the legislative history of § 924(c); (3) statutory construction; and (4) related statutes that use the term “crime of violence.” The court also pointed out, correctly, that if a criminal statute is ambiguous, the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the defendant. We agree with Judge Coffrin that narcotics offenses do not constitute crimes of violence within the meaning of § 924(c). If felonies involving the sale and distribution of narcotics are to be deemed crimes of violence for the purpose of Section 924(c), we believe that this should be done by Congress amending the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984.
The district court originally sentenced Appellant to four years imprisonment on Counts One, Four, and Six, to be served concurrently, and an additional five years on Count Five, which resulted in an overall term of imprisonment of nine years. Therefore, our reversal as to Count Five will reduce Appellant’s term of imprisonment to four years. The maximum sentences provided by statute for the offenses charged in Counts One, Four, and Six are substantially in excess of the sentences actually imposed. Therefore we are remanding for resentencing so that the district court will have latitude to increase the sentences on Counts One, Four, and Six if it concludes that such increases are appropriate. We vacate the sentences imposed on Counts One, Four, and Six and remand to the district court for resentencing. McClain v. United States, 676 F.2d 915, (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 879, 103 S.Ct. 174, 74 L.Ed.2d 143 (1982).
Affirmed as to Counts One, Four, and Six; reversed as to Count Five and remanded to the district court for resentencing on Counts One, Four, and Six.
. See also United States v. Jernigan, 612 F.Supp. 382, 384 (D.N.C.1985); United States v. Burton, No. IP 85-8-CR, (S.D.Ind. May 17, 1985); United States v. Maynard, No. CR 85-10V (W.D.Wash. April 3, 1985); United States v. Wells, 623 F.Supp. 645 (S.D.Iowa 1985).
. See United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108, 120-21 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913, 103 S.Ct. 1891, 77 L.Ed.2d 282 (1983).

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