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:
SWIFT v. MOBLEY, State Superintendent of Banks, et al.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 23, 1928.
No. 5411.
Stephen C. Upson, of Athens, Ga., and Raymond Stapleton, of Elberton, Ga. (Ma-thilde Lumpkin Upson, of Athens, Ga., on the brief), for appellant.
William L. Erwin, of Athens, Ga. (Erwin, Erwin & Nix, of Athens, Ga., and Z. B. Rogers, of Elberton, Ga., on the brief), for appellees.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and POSTER, Circuit Judges.
Certiorari denied 49 S. Ct. —, 73 L. Ed. —.
BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by Thomas M. Swift, Jr., from an order adjudging him an involuntary bankrupt. The acts of bankruptcy alleged, and proved without controversy, were that Swift, within four months prior to the filing by the creditors of their petition, had transferred his property .to his wife and his father with intent to create a preference in their favor, and to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors. The. only defense to the petition was that Swift was either a wage-earner or chiefly engaged in farming or tillage of the soil, and therefore was exempt under section 4b of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 USCA § 22(b), from being adjudged an involuntary bankrupt.
The principal creditor was the Elberton Loan & Savings Bank, which held notes signed or indorsed by Swift during the years 1923 to 1925, while he was engaged in the mercantile business at Elberton, Ga. Prom September, 1925, until February, 1927, Swift was employed on a salary, first with the Nun-nally Company of Atlanta, and then as bookkeeper for the Elberton Cotton Mill. On February 6,1927, he gave up his employment with the cotton mill on account of his eyes. Thereafter, until the petition in bankruptcy ivas filed against him, he lived at his home, about 2 miles from Elberton. This home consisted of a tract of 30 acres, only 12 or 15 acres of which were cleared for cultivation. Swift claims that in March of 1927 he reserved 4 or 5 acres on which to raise chickens. The remainder he let to a tenant, to- be planted in cotton and corn, reserving as rent one-fourth of the cotton and one-fourth of the com, out of which he received $35 for the cotton and one-fourth of about 30 bushels of com. He had 25 or 30 chickens, and in April got 280 more from an incubator. In May 230 of the chickens were lost in a fire. The transfers to his wife and father, which are attacked as preferential and fraudulént, were'made on April 8, 1927, and the petition in bankruptcy was filed on May 11, 1927.
Appellant was not exempt as a wage-earner. He was in the nonexempt class of merchants when the debts were incurred, and had ceased to be exempt before the acts of bankruptcy were committed. The evidence shows quite conclusively that appellant, after he ceased his work as bookkeeper and until the acts of bankruptcy were committed, was not actively engaged in any occupation. The raising of chickens about his home place was on too small a scale to constitute an occupation or means of living, as was also the farming by his tenant. The evidence does not support the conclusion that he was engaged chiefly in farming or tillage of the soil. As appellant was neither a wage-earner nor a farmer at the time the acts of bankruptcy were committed, it becomes unnecessary to decide the question, raised in argument by appellees, whether he should be adjudged, an involuntary bankrupt on the ground that he was engaged in a nonexempt occupation as of the date when his debts were contracted.
The order appealed from is affirmed.

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