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. David CARTER, Appellant.
No. 91-3288.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Jan. 19, 1993.
Decided Feb. 23, 1993.
Ellen Barry, Asst. Federal Public Defender, with whom A.J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender, was on the brief, for appellant.
Nancy E. Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Jay B. Stephens, U.S. Atty., John R. Fisher, and Roy W. McLeese, III, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before WALD, RUTH BADER GINSBURG, and D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge D.H. GINSBURG.
Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge WALD.
D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judge:
David Michael Carter was indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 or more grams of a mixture and substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(A)(iii). Following an evidentiary hearing the district court denied Carter’s motion to suppress evidence. Carter, who was later convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm the ruling of the district court.
I. Background
Two plain-clothes detectives from the Narcotics Interdiction Unit of the Metropolitan Police Department boarded an Amtrak train during its brief stopover at Union Station. Detective William Buss noticed one passenger, viz. the appellant, “squirming” in his seat, turning to look out the train window and turning back to look down the aisle as the officers approached. Detective Buss approached Carter, showed his police identification folder, and asked him about his trip. Carter replied that he was travelling from New York City to Fre-dricksburg, Virginia to look for construction work. Detective Buss then asked to see his ticket, which Carter handed to him. The ticket was for a passenger named “C. Carter.” Detective Buss asked to see Carter’s driver’s license, which gave his name as “Michael Carter.” Carter was acting nervously throughout this transaction; indeed, when Detective Buss handed the license back to him, Carter’s hands were trembling so much that he dropped it.
Detective Buss then asked Carter if he was carrying any drugs and Carter said “No.” Detective Buss asked Carter for permission to look in his tote bag and Carter said “Okay.” When Detective Buss searched the bag he found an assortment of new construction tools. In response to a question, however, Carter stated that he had been working in construction all his life, Detective Buss, who has done a lot of construction work himself, thought that the tools were probably a mere prop because Carter was not carrying goggles or a hard hat and because he was carrying a level that would not be used in construction work. Detective Buss also believed that Carter “didn’t have enough clothing to substantiate a trip of undetermined duration.”
As the detective rifled through the tote bag, Carter indicated that he himself would go through the bag and pull out items to show the detective. He tried at least twice to put his hands into the bag, causing Detective Buss to ask, “Do you mind if I do the searching?” Detective Buss then removed from Carter’s tote bag a brown paper bag, which Carter snatched back from him saying, “There’s food in there; I will show you.” At that point, Carter put his hand inside the paper bag, felt around, and finally withdrew his hand — which was empty. He then rolled up the paper bag and stood looking at Detective Buss. The detective stated, “I take it you don’t want me to search that?” and Carter replied, “That’s right.”
Detective Buss told Carter that he was going to take the paper bag to a dog trained to detect narcotics by smell. Although Carter himself was not detained, he followed Detective Buss off the train and onto the platform. Detective Buss took the bag to a different section of the terminal.
While Detective Buss was gone, another officer approached and asked Carter if he had been carrying drugs in the paper bag. Carter admitted that he had been carrying drugs but added that they were not his. The officer then placed Carter under arrest. Moments later, Detective Buss returned and informed the other officers on the platform that the dog’s reaction to the bag was positive and that he had opened the bag and found seventy-nine ziplock bags of apparent crack cocaine.
At his trial, Carter moved under the fourth amendment to the Constitution to suppress the drug evidence and his admission. The district court denied the motion, holding that Carter had consented to the search of his tote bag and that Detective Buss had a reasonable suspicion upon which to detain the paper bag for the purpose of a canine sniff test.
II. Analysis
Carter presents two challenges to the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. First, he argues that the district court erred in finding that he voluntarily consented to the search of his tote bag. “Because of the fact-bound nature of the inquiry [into voluntariness], we generally reverse a trial judge’s finding only for clear error.” United States v. Lewis, 921 F.2d 1294, 1301 (D.C.Cir.1990). Here Detective Buss testified that Carter said “Okay” when asked if he could search the tote bag. When, because Carter kept putting his hand into the bag, Detective Buss asked, “Do you mind if I do the searching?” Carter removed his hand and again said “Okay.” On these facts, the district court did not err, much less clearly err, in finding that Carter had consented to the search. See United States v. Joseph, 892 F.2d 118, 122 (D.C.Cir.1989) (no reversible error in finding that by reaching into bag during search defendant neither rendered search involuntary nor withdrew consent thereto).
Second, Carter maintains that Detective Buss’s seizure of the paper bag for further investigation was not supported by a reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 702, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 2642, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983) (police must have reasonable suspicion in order temporarily to detain personal effects for purpose of conducting limited investigation, including sniff by dog). The question whether a police officer acted upon a reasonable suspicion requires that we consider “the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture,” as he saw it. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981).
Viewing the totality of the circumstances here, we conclude that Detective Buss had a reasonable suspicion based upon (1) Carter’s arrival from a “source” city (New York); (2) his claim to be looking for construction work though he lacked the proper clothing and equipment; (3) his nervous behavior; and (4) his offer to show the food in the paper bag, followed by his removing his empty hand from the bag.
Carter asserts that the district court impermissibly considered his withdrawal of consent in finding reasonable suspicion. We agree. The constitutional right to withdraw one’s consent to a search, see, e.g., Mason v. Pulliam, 557 F.2d 426, 428-29 (5th Cir.1977), would be of little value if the very fact of choosing to exercise that right could serve as any part of the basis for finding the reasonable suspicion that makes consent unnecessary. Cf. Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979) (defendant’s presence in drug-ridden area and refusal to identify himself to police does not give rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity); United States v. Wilson, 953 F.2d 116, 125-26 (4th Cir.1991) (refusal to allow search of coat, after consenting to search of luggage and person, should not have counted as a factor in “reasonable suspicion” analysis). But this insight is immaterial here. For (as the district court also observed) after Carter snatched the bag back from Detective Buss and thus withdrew his consent, he volunteered to show the detective the food he had claimed was in the paper bag. Carter then felt inside the bag, pulled his hand out with nothing in it, rolled up the paper bag, and stood there silently looking at Detective Buss. The detective could reasonably take this conduct into account, as part of the totality of the circumstances, regardless whether it occurred before or, as here, after Carter had given and then withdrawn his consent to a search. See United States v. Jones, 973 F.2d 928, 931 (D.C.Cir.1992) (“A suspect is ‘free to leave’ a non-seizure interview, but when he does so by abruptly bolting after having consented, the officers are free to draw the natural conclusions”). And when added to the other factors enumerated above, Carter’s offer to show the detective the contents of his bag and his peculiar way of retracting that offer gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was concealing drugs in his bag, i.e., quite apart from his earlier withdrawal of consent to a police officer’s search.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the temporary detention of the paper bag for a canine sniff did not violate Carter’s rights under the fourth amendment. The judgment of the district court is therefore
Affirmed.
Contrary to our dissenting colleague’s characterization, we are not ”allow[ing] the police to base the necessary 'reasonable suspicion’ for a luggage detention on the manner in which a person withdraws consent.” Dissent Op. at 1098 (emphasis in original). Carter had withdrawn his consent when he retook the bag. His subsequent offer to show Detective Buss the food did not constitute a second consent, for he did not propose to allow the police officer to search the bag but instead indicated that he would himself show the officer the food he said it contained. For us to countenance the officer’s reasonable suspicion based upon such post-withdrawal conduct in no way bears upon the extent to which a reasonable suspicion may be based upon "the manner" in which consent is withdrawn. Cf. United States v. Wilson, 953 F.2d 116, 126 (4th Cir.1991) ("We are not prepared ... to rule that the form of denial can never be included as a factor to be considered in determining whether an investigative stop was justified") (emphasis in original).

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