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:
COX v. BOSTON CONSOLIDATED GAS CO.
No. 4222.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
May 29, 1947.
William J. Koen, Asst U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass. (William T. McCarthy, U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass., and John F. Sonnett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Searcy L. Johnson, Sp. Asst, to the Atty. Gen., and Philip W. Yager and Kenneth E. Spencer, Attys., Dept, of Justice, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
William M. Brady of Boston, Mass. (James S. Eastham and C. Russell Walton, both of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MAGRUDER, MAHONEY and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered for the defendant in an action brought by an ex-service man for reinstatement in his former employment pursuant to the provisions of § 8(b) (B) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 308(b) (B). The only question presented is whether the plaintiff made application to the defendant for reemployment within 90 days after he was relieved from training and service. 'The court below held that he had not and we agree.
From the stipulated facts it appears that the plaintiff was born on June 21, 1900, and that he was continuously employed by the defendant in various clerical capacities from September 8, 1930, to August 26, 1942, when, in spite of the defendant’s request for his deferment on the ground that he was “necessary to and regularly engaged in” an “Essential Activity” as defined by the War Manpower Commission, he was inducted into the United States Army. In December 1942, he applied for release from military service in order to engage in essential civilian activities, but this and subsequent similar applications were not favorably acted upon. However, one made in March, 1943, accompanied by letters from the defendant and Bethlehem Steel Company offering to employ the plaintiff in the event of his discharge, proved effective, and he was discharged from the army on April 7, 1943, in accordance with War Department Circular No. 39. On April 27, 1943, the plaintiff went to work for the Bethlehem Steel Company as a shipfitter in its East Boston yard, but on June 1, 1943, he left this employment because of the difficulties he encountered in getting to and from his work. On June 3, 1943, he obtained employment in the Radar Plant of the Raytheon Manufacturing Company. He was laid off by Raytheon because of curtailment of production on August 16, 1945, and his employment with that company finally terminated about two weeks later. On September 26, following, he made application for reinstatement in his former position with the defendant, and on October 2, he was advised that his application was denied on the ground that it had not been timely made.
The plaintiff contended below, and seems to contend here also, that his discharge from the army under Circular 39, supra, was expressly conditioned upon his taking employment in an essential capacity in an essential war industry and continuing in such employment for the duration of the war emergency. The court below did not so interpret the circular and neither do we. It seems to us clearly to provide for the unconditional discharge of enlisted men over 38 years of age on a mere representation of an intention on their part to engage in work necessary to the prosecution of the war. In view of the district court’s full discussion of this circular in its opinion (D.C., 67 F.Supp. 742) we see no occasion to elaborate this point any further.
Nevertheless the plaintiff contends that his discharge, even though in terms unconditional, gave him only nominal release from the army because if at any time he should cease to be regularly engaged in some necessary capacity in an essential activity he would be promptly reinducted. Therefore he says, since the reemployment provisions of the Selective Training and Service Act are to be “liberally construed for the benefit of those who left private life to serve their country in its hour of great need” (Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corporation, 328 U.S. 275, 285, 66 S.Ct. 1105, 1111, 90 L.Ed. 1230, 167 A.L.R. 110) the 90 day period within which to apply for reinstatement given to him by the Act should not be considered as starting to run until August 31, 1945, when his employment with the Raytheon Manufacturing Company finally terminated.
The district court disposed of this contention on two grounds; first that the plaintiff had not shown that a 43 year old man who had served some eight months in the army and been discharged ran any practical risk of reinduction whatever during 1943 and subsequent war years, and second that the theoretical risk the plaintiff ran of reinduction into the army did not excuse him from making application for his old position with the defendant. We agree. Furthermore § 3(a) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 was amended on November 13, 1942, 56 Stat. 1018, 1019, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 303(a), by the addition of a proviso “That no man, without his consent, shall be inducted for training and service under this Act after he has attained the forty-fifth anniversary of the day of his birth” and the plaintiff attained that anniversary, and so became immune to induction, on June 21, 1945, more than 90 days before he applied for reinstatement to his former position with the defendant.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
See Local Board Memorandum No. 115 issued by National Headquarters, Selective Service System, March 16, 1942.

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