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:
UNITED STATES of America v. William VASILICK, Appellant.
No. 13419.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 23, 1961.
Decided April 26, 1961.
Joseph J. Walsh, Scranton, Pa., for appellant.
Daniel R. Minnick, Asst. U. S. Atty., Scranton, Pa (Daniel H. Jenkins, U. S. Atty., Scranton, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before KALODNER, STALEY and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denying the petition of appellant, William Vasilick, for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis.
The petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 was premised on these grounds: (1) Vasilick was held incommunicado for two weeks prior to trial; (2) court-appointed counsel for Vasilick was denied a request for continuance so that he might have reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial and (3) petitioner was handcuffed in the presence of the jury during his trial.
The record discloses that Vasilick was indicted in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on June 2, 1942, together with two other persons, for armed robbery of the First Stroudsburg National Bank, in Pennsylvania, on August 5,1941; he was arraigned on November 4, 1942 at which time the trial court appointed an experienced trial counsel, Joseph J. Walsh, Esq., to represent him; a plea of not guilty was entered; a jury was immediately drawn and the taking of testimony commenced the following day; the jury returned a verdict of guilty and Vasilick was sentenced on November 12, 1942 to serve a term of 25 years which was to run consecutive to a 25-year prison sentence imposed on him on May 29, 1942, following his conviction for another bank robbery in the state of New Jersey.
After hearing on January 27,1960, the District Court on August 31, 1960 entered the Order now under review.
In an Opinion, which made Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, accompanying its Order, the District Court found that the record failed to sustain the contention that Vasilick had been held incommunicado and that it further failed to establish that Vasilick or his counsel had requested the trial court to order a continuance of his trial. It dismissed as irrelevant the ground that Vasilick had been manacled during the trial.
The petition in the instant case was filed by Walsh who had served as Vasilick’s court-appointed counsel during his 1942 trial.
At the time of oral argument of the instant appeal Walsh urged to this Court that the District Court erred in its fact-finding that he, Walsh, had not requested a continuance of the 1942 trial. In doing so Walsh now states that he had “in substance” made such a request but that it was ignored by the trial court. Walsh frankly admits here that he did not testify in the proceedings in the court below that he had “in substance” made the request for continuance at the trial and states that he did not do so because he was concerned that it might disqualify him as acting as counsel for Vasilick in the pending proceeding.
The reason assigned by Walsh for his failure to testify in the District Court with respect to what transpired at the trial is, of course, utterly without merit but the fact remains that the District Court should be afforded opportunity to hear his testimony, which he says he desires to present, on the score of the request for continuance issue.
It may be added that the United States Attorney is in accord with the view expressed.
It should be said that we find no error in the District Court’s disposition with respect to the other issues presented.
For the reasons stated the Order of the District Court will be vacated and the cause remanded to proceed in accordance with this Opinion.

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