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:
Lamar WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
No. 15961.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
March 19, 1965.
Lamar Williams, in pro. per.
Thomas L. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Dwayne D. Maddox, Asst. U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Justice, Criminal Division, Washington, D. C., on brief for appellee.
Before CECIL, O’SULLIVAN and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner filed a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was disallowed by the district court, and petitioner has appealed.
Petitioner and three codefendants were charged with robbing a bank in Oakland, Tennessee, on February 3, 1961, and placing the bank employees’ lives in jeopardy by use of a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Petitioner was represented by counsel at the hearing and entered a plea of guilty.
This is the same bank robbery that was involved in Olive v. United States, 327 F.2d 646 (C.A. 6), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 971, 84 S.Ct. 1653, 12 L.Ed.2d 740. The facts in the present case are substantially similar in many respects to the facts as set forth in some detail in the opinion of this court in the Olive case, and will not be repeated here.
The order of the district judge contains the following summary of the former proceedings:
“The petitioner entered pleas of guilty in this Court to the offenses charged against him and completely admitted his guilt of the offenses in open court.
“The United States of America has filed a motion to dismiss the petition and supported that motion with Affidavits of Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and also the complete official court reporter’s transcript of all proceedings in this case. The Court recalls vividly this entire matter. The petitioner, along with his accomplices, were apprehended in a getaway car with the money obtained during the robbery and the gun used in the holdup was found in the car minutes after the robbery of The Oakland Deposit Bank, Oakland, Tennessee, on February 3, 1961.
“As shown by the transcript, the indictments were read to the petitioner in full by the Clerk in open court. At the time the pleas of guilty were entered in this cause, Lamar Williams was represented by competent counsel who was acquainted with his family. The Court questioned him as to his guilt of the offenses charged against him. Subsequently, on the date of sentencing, March 29, 1961, the Court again questioned petitioner as to his pleas of guilty and afforded him every opportunity to make a statement and asked him if the District Attorney made a true factual statement of his case.”
We find that this summary is fully supported by the record.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473; Olive v. United States, supra; United States v. Orlando, 327 F.2d 185 (C.A. 6), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 825, 85 S.Ct. 50, 13 L.Ed.2d 35.

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