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:
J. Garrett BEITZELL v. Bernard L. FRISHMAN. Belle F. Frishman, Appellant.
No. 22632.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Oct. 27, 1969.
Decided April 14, 1970.
Mr. Peter A. Greenburg, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Stanley Klavan, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. James C. Wilkes, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, and TAMM, Circuit Judge.
BAZELON, Chief Judge:
Appellant is the wife of one Bernard Frishman. She and her husband were defendants below in this suit to recover a broker’s commission for an unconsummated sale of real property located in Maryland. Judgment was entered against both Mrs. Frishman and her husband; on this appeal, the husband’s liability is not contested. Mrs. Frishman, however, maintains that a verdict should have been directed in her favor on the ground that the evidence established that she signed the sales contract not as a party, but for the sole purpose of releasing such dower rights as she might have in the property; and that therefore she is not liable to the broker for his commission. We agree.
A wife under Maryland law is entitled to dower in all real property, not held under a joint tenancy, of which her husband was seized during coverture. A transfer of the property by the husband alone cannot operate to bar the wife’s claim. Her dower, however, may be released by her own act. Although she may demand consideration for her release, normally the consideration paid her husband for sale of the property is the only consideration received.
The usual method of obtaining the wife’s release of her dower is to have her sign the contract of sale. Although there seem to be no Maryland cases on the precise point, the general rule is that, when this has been done, it will be rebuttably presumed that her signature on the contract was for the sole purpose of releasing her dower rights.
This presumption, however, need not be relied upon in the present case. The contract of sale itself distinguished between the sellers and their wives. Bernard Frishman signed the contract as “Seller,” while Mrs. Frishman signed as “Wife of BERNARD FRISHMAN.” Beyond this, there is nothing in the record that would indicate the parties understood that Mrs. Frishman was to become an actual party to the sale. In consequenee, no finding of liability as to her should have been made, and a directed verdict should have been granted in her favor. The case is reversed with directions to do so.
So ordered.
. The parties are agreed that, in consequenee statement, Conflict of Laws § 215. , Maryland law should govern here. See Re-
. Md.Code Ann. art. 45, § 6 (1965). The land underlying the present suit appears to have been held by the husband and another as joint tenants. There is, however, no indication that the parties to the contract believed that Mrs. Frishman was one of the owners.
. Trotter v. Lewis, 185 Md. 528, 529, 45 A.2d 329 (1946).
. Md.Code Ann. art. 45, § 12 (1965).
. Mueller v. Fidelity-Baltimore National Bank, 226 Md. 629, 175 A.2d 789 (1961).
. See, e. g., Trotter v. Lewis, supra, note 3, at 537, 45 A.2d at 334.
. E. g„ In re Fischer’s Estate, 22 Wis.2d 637, 126 N.W.2d 596 (1964).
. The printed form contract referred to “seller” and “wife;” the typewritten annex referred indifferently to “seller” or “sellers” and “wife” or “wives.”

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