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:
Donald JALBERT, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 22237.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
April 3, 1967.
Rehearing Denied June 12, 1967.
Paul Frederick Rothstein, Joel J. Finer, Austin, Tex., Donald Jalbert, Miami, Fla., for appellant.
James O. Murphy, Jr., and Donald Bierman, Asst. U. S. Attys., William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, WISDOM, Circuit Judge and BREWSTER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The two count indictment in this case charged appellant and his two co-defendants (1) with unlawfully receiving and retaining 825 stolen U. S. Postal Money Orders having a value of $82,500.00, with knowledge that they were stolen and with intent to convert them to their own use, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, and (2) with conspiracy to violate that statute by such receipt and retention, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Each defendant was convicted on both counts, and the two other than appellant accepted their sentences without appeal. The appellant received a five year term on each count, and the sentences were run concurrently.
The appellant’s chief complaints are that the evidence was insufficient to show that the value of the stolen money orders was in excess of $100.00, and that the manner of submission to the jury of the issue of value was improper.
A careful consideration of the record has led us to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding that the aggregate value of the 823 stolen blank money orders in the possession of appellant and his confederates exceeded $100.00. United States v. Ciongoli, 3 Cir., 358 F.2d 439 (1966); United States v. Kramer, 2 Cir., 289 F.2d 909, 920 (1961); United States v. Marpes, 3 Cir., 198 F.2d 186. Both Ciongoli and Kramer hold that the value of a stolen blank postal money order is not limited to the worth of the paper itself or to its use in legitimate business channels. Ciongoli specifically says that it is proper, in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 641, to consider the value “in the course of illegal trade with a view to criminal misuse of the money orders.” The very nature of that kind of value would make direct evidence difficult to obtain, and the government sought here to prove value in excess of $100.00 by circumstantial evidence, as was done in Marpes, supra. Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (1955), 12th Ed., at p. 472, states the rule in criminal cases to be that: “Any fact may be established by circumstantial evidence as sufficiently and completely as by positive direct evidence * * * ” We could not reasonably say that while circumstantial evidence can be relied upon to prove vital components of offenses, such as corpus delicti, connection of the accused with the crime, etc., it cannot be used to prove a circumstance that only aggravates the punishment. There is nothing in statutes of this nature that requires the prosecution to prove the exact or the approximate value of the stolen property received. It is sufficient if the evidence shows that the aggregate value is in excess of $100.00. It would unduly lengthen this opinion, without serving any useful purpose, to detail all the circumstances here. Suffice it to say that such requirement was met by the circumstances of the great number of the money orders, their potential in legitimate channels when filled out so as to appear valid, the possession by the defendants of the necessary equipment to make them appear valid on their face, the underworld market for them whether filled in or not, and all the more detailed circumstances, including the entire conduct of the participants in the offense.
We approve the method used in submitting the issue of value to the jury. The forms of verdict provided for the jury called for a finding on the guilt or innocence of each defendant on each count and for a separate finding on whether the value of the property involved was more or less than $100.00. The question of value in this kind of case deals only with punishment, and not with guilt. United States v. Ciongoli, supra, 358 F.2d, at 441. When these forms of verdict are considered in the light of the Court’s charge, the value issue was fairly and properly submitted to the jury.
The concurrent sentences make it unnecessary for us to consider the further contention relating only to the conviction on the substantive offense. However, we have carefully examined all the points raised, and conclude that they present no reversible error.
Counsel appointed to represent appellant on appeal are commended for the brief and argument presented by them to this Court.
The judgment 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