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:
Lewis R. DIXON, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16263.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Sept. 28, 1961.
Decided Oct. 19, 1961.
Mr. Lloyd N. Cutler, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.
Miss Doris H. Spangenburg, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Charles T. Duncan, Principal Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Harry T. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., at the time the record was filed, was also on the brief for appellee. Mr. Oliver Gaseh, U. S. Atty., at the time the record was filed, and Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., at the time the record was filed, also entered appearances for appellee.
Before Prettyman, Washington and Danaher, Circuit Judges.
PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.
Dixon was indicted and tried on three counts and was convicted on one, which charged receipt of stolen property.
The question presented on this appeal is whether there was probable cause for the arrest, the pertinence of ■ the point being that the admissibility of the property seized at the time of the arrest depended upon it.
Two police officers were cruising in the Northwest section of Washington in the neighborhood of Griffith Stadium at about midnight. They noticed an Oldsmobile, in which were two men, one of them known to the officers as a safe-breaker. The officers followed the car. They saw a man on the curb beckon to the two men. A brief conversation between the men ip the car and the man on the curb ensued, and the car made a right turn and proceeded on Wiltburger Street. , The person who had beckoned walked in the same direction. The officers saw the Oldsmobile park in front of a Plymouth. They drove around the block and then entered Wiltburger Street. .The trunks of both the Oldsmobile and the Plymouth were open. Four men, including, appellant, were standing together on the curb beside the Plymouth. The light inside the trunk of the Plymouth was on. As the officers approached, one of them saw one of the men on- the curb throw something to the ground. The officers parked abreast of the Plymouth. One of them alighted and approached the •four men. As he passed the trunk of the Plymouth he saw inside the lighted trunk ári open cardboard carton in which was a fur piece with a price tag or label on it. Upon looking at the article which had been thrown on the ground, he discovered that it was a garment. He inquired of the men as to the owner of the garment and received no reply. He picked it up and noted that it was a lady’s two-piece suit from which the price tags had not been removed. He again inquired as to the owner of the suit and again received no reply. At that point he ordered the four men to raise their hands and to face the wall. He searched them and the Plymouth, and his partner called for the police wagon.
At the trial the lady’s suit, the fur piece, and another article later seized from the Plymouth were admitted in evidence over objection.
The questions before us are: Under the sum total of circumstances at the moment, (1) what was a reasonably prudent police officer entitled to believe, and (2) upon the basis of his belief what was he to do? Many opinions have been written upon- the subject, a few of which we cite. Mr. Justice Douglas, writing for the Court in the Henry case, said: “Probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances known to the officer warrant a prudent man in believing that the offense has been committed.” The decisive factors are that all the circumstances are to be considered together, in a sum total; that the circumstances to be considered are those of the moment; that the impression to be evaluated is the impression upon the mind of a reasonably prudent police officer; and that the impression made upon him by the circumstances is a reasonable belief that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. In the case at bar the police officers concluded that the circumstances indicated reasonable probability of a criminal offense. When their initial attempts at inquiry were ineffective, they took the suspects into custody. We think they decided correctly and acted correctly. We think an arrest was .justified. Four men, one known to be a safebreaker, meeting upon signal, handling women’s clothes, including a fur piece, bearing price tags or labels, on .the curb of a narrow street at midnight, could well induce a reasonably prudent police officer to conclude that a larceny, robbery, housebreaking, or some similar offense had been, was being, or was about to be committed. Reasonable probability is all that is required.
The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
. Among the Supreme Court cases are: Henry v. United States, 1959, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134; Brinegar v. United States, 1949, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302; 93 L.Ed. 1879; United States v. Di Re, 1948, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, .92 L.Ed. 210; Husty v. United States, 1931, 282 U.S. 694, 51 S.Ct. 240, 75 L.Ed. 629; Dumbra v. United States, 1925, 268 U.S. 435, 45 S.Ct. 546, 69 L.Ed. 1032; Carroll v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543.
Cases in this court include: Campbell v. United States, 1961, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 289 F.2d 775; Hanna v. United States, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 205, 260 F.2d 723; Bell v. United States, 1958, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 383, 254 F.2d 82, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 885, 79 S.Ct. 126, 3 L.Ed.2d 113; Ellison v. United States, 1953, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 206 F.2d 476; Mills v. United States, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 196 F.2d 600, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 826, 73 S.Ct. 27, 97 L.Ed. 643.
Yet other cases in this court, touching upon police inquiry before arrest, include: Ellis v. United States, 1959, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 86, 88, 264 F.2d 372, 374, certiorari denied 359 U.S. 998, 79 S.Ct. 1129, 3 L.Ed.2d 986; Green v. United States, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 24, 259 F.2d 180, 181, certiorari denied 1959, 359 U.S. 917, 79 S.Ct. 594, 3 L.Ed.2d 578; Lee v. United States, 1954, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 156, 157, 221 F.2d 29, 30.
. Henry v. United States, 1959, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168, 171, 4 L.Ed.2d 134.
. In our statement and discussion of the circumstances we purposely omit all reference to and consideration of subsequent events, such as statements by the accused, further investigations, and other circumstances pertinent to the problem of guilt or innocence.

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