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:
Walter F. KEYS, Appellant, v. Walter DUNBAR et al., Appellees.
No. 22036.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Jan. 21, 1969.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1969.
Walter F. Keys, in pro. per.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., David M. Rothman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BROWNING, ELY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from an order entered January 26, 1967, denying his motion to vacate and set aside a prior District Court order, which in turn had denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
On October 30, 1963, while Keys was in state custody, he filed his original petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal District Court, asserting that constitutional errors invalidated his conviction upon charges of abortion. (28 U.S.C. § 2241.) His petition was denied without an evidentiary hearing by an order entered April 17, 1964. He filed a notice of appeal from that order on June 11, 1964. The District Court refused to issue a certificate of probable cause. (28 U.S.C. § 2253.) Keys took no further steps to perfect an appeal from that order.
Beginning in February 1965 Keys filed in the District Court successive motions to vacate and set aside the order of April 17, 1964. Each of the motions was denied. On February 23, 1966, Keys was finally discharged from custody. The last motion in the series was filed on December 20, 1966, in which Keys set forth the various grounds urged in the original habeas petition to support collateral attack on the state judgment, and in addition claimed fraud on the District Court, based upon the alleged failure of the respondent to file an affidavit which it had promised to file in its response to the original habeas petition. After a nonevidentiary hearing on January 9, 1967, the District Court denied the motion in an order entered January 26, 1967. Petitioner filed his notice of appeal from that order on February 13, 1967, and a certificate of probable cause was issued. The appeal presently before us is the attempted appeal from the order of January 26, 1967.
If we construe Keys’ motion of December 20, 1966, as a renewed petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain the motion, and we are without jurisdiction to review it because Keys had been discharged for custody before he filed the motion. (Cf. Carafas v. LaVallee (1968) 391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554.
If we construe the motion as a motion to vacate or modify the prior order of the District Court, we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because an order denying such a motion is not an appealable order. (Nealon v. Hill (9 Cir. 1945) 149 F.2d 883; Bowers v. E. J. Rose Manufacturing Co. (9 Cir. 1945) 149 F.2d 612; Donovan v. Jeffcott (9 Cir. 1945) 147 F.2d 198.)
Appeal is limited to the denial of that portion of Keys’s motion, seeking relief on grounds specified in Rule 60(b) from the prior order denying his original petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Russell v. Cunningham (9 Cir. 1960) 279 F.2d 797, 802.) The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because (1) Rule 60(b) relief was foreclosed by limitations in that more than one year had elapsed from the entry of the order denying Keys’s original petition for habeas corpus to the filing of his motion pursuant to Rule 60(b); (2) there was no substantial basis for Keys’s claim that the State committed fraud on the court, justifying an independent action to set aside the order.
Keys’s claim of fraud is based on the following facts: In the State’s response to Keys’s original petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the State referred to an affidavit of Edward Gritz, a lawyer who represented Keys on his appeal from the state court conviction. Gritz is alleged to have said in his affidavit that evidence which Keys claimed his trial counsel suppressed would not have been material on appeal. No affidavit of Gritz was annexed to the State’s response and none was thereafter presented by the State. On Keys’s motion to set aside the prior order, he presented an affidavit of Mr. Gritz, in which Gritz said that he never wrote or submitted an affidavit to the Attorney General and that he had never viewed the evidence or known about its existence until Keys brought it to his office shortly before Gritz signed the affidavit.
The State’s neglect in filing its response referring to an affidavit which was never filed is not commendable, but the State’s omission did not amount to a fraud on the court. To justify setting aside a final order on the ground of fraud, the acts of the adverse party “must be such as prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense.” (Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Barrett (9 Cir. 1957) 246 F.2d 846, 849.) The State’s failure to file the Gritz affidavit did not prevent Keys from fully and fairly presenting his case. The statements attributed by the State to Gritz were expressions of opinion upon a matter of law and not a purported recitation of facts. The statements were irrelevant and did not affect the District Court’s determination of Keys’s petition for habeas corpus.
The order is affirmed.
. Rule 60(b) in pertinent part states: “On motion * * *, the court may relieve a party * * * from a final * * * order, * * * for the following reasons : (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; * * * The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the * * * order, * * was entered or taken. * * * This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a[n] * * * order * * or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. * * * ”

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