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:
Lenine STROLLO, Appellant, v. Noah L. ALLDREDGE, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.
No. 71-2060.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 1972 Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6).
Decided June 30, 1972.
T. Max Hall, McNerney, Page, Vanderlin & Hall, Williamsport, Pa., for appellant.
S. John Cottone, U. S. Atty., Lewis-burg, Pa., for appellee.
Before STALEY, VAN DUSEN and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, a Federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Appellant was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in 1963. Following a fruitless appeal of his conviction, he began serving the imposed sentence in October 1967. It is appellant’s position that the sentence imposed was for a term of three years. The Government contends that the sentence imposed was for a term of nine years, and the judgment and commitment so provide.
The district court dismissed appellant’s petition on the grounds that the determination of the question of the length of his sentence was for the sentencing court and that the proper and exclusive remedy is by motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Appellant argues that his ease involves a factual dispute between jailer and prisoner as to the duration of imprisonment. He contends that where it appears that the jailer obtained custody lawfully but wrongfully extended the period of imprisonment, a Federal court sitting at the venue of incarceration has a duty, when presented with a habeas corpus petition, to conduct appropriate proceedings, determine the facts, make conclusions, and enter appropriate relief.
Our examination of the record in the instant case discloses that this is not, as appellant contends, a dispute between prisoner and jailer over the term of commitment. The petition and answer clearly present a dispute over the term of the sentence imposed by the court in the Northern District of Ohio, and therefore one within the ambit of § 2255.
We have repeatedly held that as to issues cognizable by the sentencing court under § 2255, a motion under that section supersedes habeas corpus and provides the exclusive remedy. Sobell v. Attorney General, 400 F.2d 986 (C.A.3), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 940, 89 S.Ct. 302, 21 L.Ed.2d 277 (1968); Litterio v. Parker, 369 F.2d 395 (C.A.3, 1966); United States ex rel. Leguillou v. Davis, 212 F.2d 681 (C.A.3, 1954).
The order of the district court will be 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