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:
McGOWEN v. UNITED STATES.
No. 7303.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Decided June 19, 1939.
Washington, D. C., for appellant. David A. Pine, U.
S. Atty., and How- ard Boyd and Stephen P. Llaycock, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Washington, D. C. Before GRONER, Chief Justice,
and EDGERTON. and VINSON, Associate Justices. EDGERTON, Associate Justice. Defendant
appeals from a
conviction of forgery. The sole question is whether prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations. Section 582 of the Criminal Code provides that “No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any of- fense,” with exceptions not material here, “unless the indictment is found * * * within three years next after such offense shall have been committed.” Section 583 provides: “Nothing in sections 581 and 582 of this title shall extend to any person fleeing from justice.” The indictment was found
on March 3, 1937, and fixes the date of the crime as January 23, 1934. It is stipulated that the defendant “shortly after January 24, 1934, absented himself from the District of Co- lumbia and thereafter remained continu- 118 u.S.C. § 582, ously absent therefrom” until February 26, 1938; and that from January 29, 1934 to February 26, 1938, he was confined in a penal institution in Virginia. The record contains no other pertinent facts.
“To be a fugitive from justice, in the sense of the act of congress regulating the subject under consideration, it is not necessary that the party charged should have left the state in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, after an indictment found, or for the purpose of avoiding a prosecution anticipated or begun, but simply that having within a state committed that which by its laws constitutes a crime, when he is sought to be subjected to its criminal process to answer for his of-fence, he has left its jurisdiction, and is found within the territory of another.” The Supreme Court first used that language with regard to the extradition law, but afterwards expressly applied it to the statute here involved. Accordingly appellant, when he left the District after committing forgery, was a “person fleeing from justice,” regardless of his motive in leaving.
Appellant urges that he was no longer “fleeing” while he was a prisoner in Virginia. But the reason for his continued absence would seem to be no more material, on the question of “fleeing,” than the reason for his original departure. Moreover, the question whether he continued to be “fleeing” is itself immaterial. Just as “any person selling drugs” is equivalent, in statutory language, to “any person who shall sell drugs,” so “any person fleeing from justice” is equivalent to “any person who shall flee from justice.” The statute does not say “any person fleeing from justice and continuing in flight for three years.” “We must take the statute to mean what its language plainly imports, that a person who flees from justice before its bar takes effect shall have no benefit whatever from it.” The question is not whether he remained out of the District for any particular reason, or at all ; it is enough that he did not remain for three years within the District.
Affirmed.
18 U.S.C.A. § 582~ 18 U.S.C.A. § 582~
Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U.S. 80, 97, 6 S.Ct. 291, 300, 29 L.Ed. 544.
Streep v. United States, 160 U.S. 128, 134, 16 S.Ct. 244, 40 L.Ed. 365. Cf. Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U.S. 222, 229, 27 S.Ct. 122, 51 L.Ed. 161, 7 Ann.Cas. 1073.
Howgate v. United States, 7 App.D.C. 217, 244. .
In re Bruce, C.C.,132 F. 390, 393, affirmed, 4 Cir., 136 F. 1022.

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