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:
Robert Lee TARIN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 22044.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 5, 1965.
Rehearings Denied Dec. 7, 1965.
Thomas A. Rice, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Gary B. Blasingame, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., and Floyd M. Buford, U. S. Atty, Macon, Ga., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BELL and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of transporting a falsely made security in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C., Section 2814, and was sentenced to four years in the custody of the Attorney General. He here contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, that there were errors in the admission of evidence, that he was not allowed to file a certain affidavit in lieu of testimony, and that it was error for the trial judge to inform the jury that he had been found competent to stand trial after the defense attorney had so stated in his opening statement.
None but the latter assignment is of sufficient merit to justify formal discussion.
Among other things, 18 U.S.C.A. section 4244 provides that a finding by the judge that the accused is mentally competent to stand trial shall not be introduced in evidence on the issue of insanity as a defense to the crime charged nor otherwise be brought to the notice of the jury (italics supplied).
In his opening statement to jury, before any witness testified, Counsel for the defendant said, “Now, it is true that a determination has been made by psychiatrists that Mr. Tarin does now have or is now competent to furnish his attorney with a defense and therefore should be tried”.
In his charge to the jury the trial judge said, “I have already had it determined for my own satisfaction before I began the trial of this case that the defendant is at this time mentally capable to stand trial; otherwise, we would not be here trying the defendant. I have satisfied myself about that, but the mere fact that I have determined for my own satisfaction in the trial of this case that he is now mentally competent does not automatically mean that he was mentally competent on October 30, 1963, because temporary insanity, as well as insanity of longer duration is recognized by the law.”
We note that the Defendant entered no objection to this charge. Rule 30 F.R.Crim.P. requires such to have been made. Where none is made it is waived. Smith v. United States, 265 F.2d 14 (5 Cir., 1959).
In any event, the error was harmless. The judge simply reiterated facts which the Defendant voluntarily injected into the case. Moreover, the jury was amply admonished that such a finding did not mean that the Defendant was sane on the date of the alleged offense.
See Lyles v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 254 F.2d 725, certiorari denied 356 U.S. 961, 78 S.Ct. 997, 2 L.Ed. 2d 1067, certiorari denied 362 U.S. 943, 80 S.Ct. 809, 4 L.Ed.2d 771, certiorari denied 368 U.S. 992, 82 S.Ct. 610, 7 L.Ed. 2d 529; Mercer v. Theriot, 377 U.S. 152, 84 S.Ct. 1157, 12 L.Ed.2d 206 (1964); Roland v. United States, 295 F.2d 471 (5 Cir. 1961); Glenn v. United States, 303 F.2d 536 (5 Cir. 1962); and Traxler v. United States, 293 F.2d 327 (5 Cir. 1961).
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