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:
OHAMA v. UNITED STATES.
No. 8299.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 8, 1937.
E. J. Bolts, of Honolulu, T. H., for appellant.
Ingram M. Stainback, U. S. Atty., and J. Frank McLaughlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Honolulu, T. H., and H. H. McPike. U. S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal., for the United States.
Before WILBUR and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
The appellant, Susumu Ohama, applied for admission to the United States at Honolulu claiming to be a citizen of the United States. The immigration authorities rejected his claim, denied him admission to the United States, and directed that he be returned to Japan. While detained for that purpose, he applied to the District Court of the United States in the Territory of Hawaii for writ of habeas corpus claiming that the hearing by Special Board of Inquiry was unfair. The prayer of his petition was denied and he was remanded to the custody of the immigration authorities for deportation. From this denial, he takes this appeal.
The appellant testified that he was born in Honolulu on July 17, 1909; that he departed with his parents in 1910 for Japan and remained there until he returned in September, 1930, when he was admitted as a native born citizen of the United States. In 1934 he returned to Japan. Before his return, he applied to the immigration authorities, on January 11, 1934, for his certificate of citizenship. This application was denied, but nevertheless the appellant left for Japan. He returned September 11, 1935, and applied for admission. After hearing, the immigration authorities concluded that notwithstanding the previous admission of the applicant to the United States he was not the child named Susumu Ohama who was born July 17, 1909.
The evidence in favor of the applicant was unusually complete. Several witnesses, including the midwife who assisted at the birth of Susumu Ohama, testified to the fact of the birth, the parentage of the child, the departure of the child with its parents, for Japan, and identified the applicant as the child they had known when a baby less than a year old. The only flaw in this testimony is the difficulty of identifying a young man of twenty-one as the same individual they had known when he was less than a year old. The applicant produced a photograph of a baby less than a year old which had been taken in Honolulu ana identified it as his picture. A similar picture with a different dress is attached to the birth certificate of Susumu Ohama which had been offered in evidence at the time the appellant entered in 1930. The witness introduced by the government testified that these two pictures were the same child. The appellant so testified and 'testified that he was that child. A witness for the government claiming to have expert knowledge with reference to the identification of individuals by reason of a long police experience testified that neither of these pictures was a photograph of the appellant when he was a child. He bases his testimony entirely upon the appearance of the ear of the child photographed as compared with that of the appellant. He pointed out the difference and testified that although the size of a person’s ear changes, its characteristics remain the same from birth until death unless injured. He testified:
“I mean by that the ridge or contour will* remain the same. If a lobe is gulfed, attached, or descending, it will be that way until death, the same as finger prints. The finger prints of a person are the same from birth until death unless they are damaged.”
Appellant, on appeal, notwithstanding his testimony at the hearing that the picture taken in Honolulu was his picture now claims that this picture was obviously the picture of a girl, that the dress so indicates, and that his error in presenting this picture as his own likeness was because it had been given to him by an aunt while in Japan. Of course, it is obvious that the appellant could not know that this picture of a child only a year old was his own picture except by family tradition and it might be quite true that he presented the picture honestly believing that it was his own, whereas in fact it was the picture of some other person, his sister, for instance. But this explanation does not meet the situation, for the birth certificate procured by Tsurumatsu Ohama, the father, and by Yao Ohama, the mother, of Susumu Ohama, identifies Susumu Ohama by the attached photograph which, ás has been stated, is the same child whose photograph was produced by the appellant as his own. The birth certificate is that of a boy and not of a girl.
The question for our consideration is whether or not the hearing before the immigration authorities was unfair and a denial of due process because the immigration authorities accepted and acted upon the testimony of an expert witness to the effect that the baby photographs presented by the appellant were not photographs of the appellant, but of another child, and consequently, concluding that the appellant was masquerading under the name of a native born Hawaiian, Susumu Ohama. We cannot see that the rejection of the appellant’s testimony, whose weight depended upon the ability of witnesses to identify an adult as the same person they had seen twenty years ago as a baby less than a year old, is not justified when testimony was introduced showing that the photographs of this baby were not photographs of the applicant.
Order 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