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:
Roderick L. LeBRON, Jr., Appellant, v. Joseph VITEK, Director of Douglas County Corrections, Appellee.
No. 84-1916.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 1984.
Decided Jan. 4, 1985.
Timothy J. Cuddigan, Marks, Clare, Hopkins, Rauth & Cuddigan, and James Schae-fer, Gallup & Schaefer, Omaha, Neb., for appellant.
Donald L. Knowles, Douglas County Atty. by Bernard L. Huelskamp, Deputy Douglas County Atty., Omaha, Neb., for appellee.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge and BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Roderick LeBron was convicted in Nebraska state court of receiving stolen property, specifically a Sylvania video cassette recorder (VCR), serial no. 8300933. His conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Nebraska. State v. LeBron, 217 Neb. 452, 349 N.W.2d 918 (1984).
In his federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, LeBron claimed the seizure of the Sylvania VCR. which resulted in his conviction was based on an invalid warrant. The prosecution of LeBron arose from a search warrant executed at his home in June, 1982. The district court found that this court did not invalidate the entire warrant in the earlier federal proceeding on a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm. In reviewing the present habeas petition the district court read United States v. LeBron, 729 F.2d 533 (8th Cir.1984), in conjunction with United States v. Fitzgerald, 724 F.2d 633 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2151, 80 L.Ed.2d 538 (1984), and found the part of the warrant specifying the Sylvania VCR valid. The district court also noted its belief that the Supreme Court of Nebraska had given LeBron the full and fair hearing on this issue required by Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3046-47, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976).
LeBron argues that he neither briefed nor argued the issue of severability in his state appeal. Nonetheless, the Nebraska Supreme Court considered the issue and, relying on our Fitzgerald decision, found the specific authorization for the search and seizure of the Sylvania VCR could be severed from the invalid part of the warrant and upheld. State v. LeBron, 217 Neb. at 454, 349 N.W.2d at 921. The Nebraska Supreme Court’s opinion reflects careful consideration of the pertinent law and facts. We believe the state has given LeBron a full and fair hearing on the fourth amendment issue. Under Stone v. Powell, LeBron’s petition should be dismissed.
Even if we were to accept LeBron’s contention that there can be no full and fair hearing without specific briefing and argument, his petition must be dismissed on its merits. As the district court observed, LeBron’s arguments are based on a misreading of our earlier opinion in United States v. LeBron, 729 F.2d 533. Our discussion in that case related only to the validity of the seizure of firearms under the general authority to search for records and stolen property. Contrary to LeBron’s argument, we did not hold the entire warrant invalid. We reaffirmed the concept of severability, LeBron, 729 F.2d at 537 n. 2, and, therefore, did not consider the parts of the warrant specifying electronic equipment. However, the clear implication of our opinion was that those parts were valid. See LeBron, 729 F.2d at 536. The Sylvania VCR was described with particularity, including its serial number, and seized shortly after the officers entered the premises— before the general search for records and other stolen property had begun. Thus, LeBron’s contention that the whole warrant was invalid, upon which he bases his petition, is without merit.
The district court should be affirmed and LeBron’s petition dismissed.
. That warrant has been the subject of previous litigation in this court. See United States v. LeBron, 729 F.2d 533 (8th Cir.1984). The warrant described LeBron’s residence and authorized a search for a specific Sony VCR, Panasonic Large Screen Television, and Sylvania VCR, each identified by serial number. In addition, the warrant allowed a general search for records and other stolen property. We previously struck down the last two categories as impermissibly broad, violating the fourth amendment. See id.

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