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:
Elmer J. HOWE, Appellant, v. Eugene R. BROUSE, Appellee.
No. 19751.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
March 2, 1970.
Elmer J. Howe, pro se.
Thomas A. Sweeny, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee; Herbert C. Hoffman, Counselor, Kansas City, Mo., and Dan G. Jackson, III, Associate City Counselor, Kansas City, Mo., on the brief.
Before MATTHES, GIBSON and LAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of summary judgment issued by Judge William Collinson denying plaintiff Howe’s suit for damages for violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Howe’s complaint arises out of his allegation that while appearing in Division No. 2 of the Kansas City Municipal Court on June 6, 1964 on a misdemeanor charge of destruction of personal property of the value of $1.60, the presiding judge, Honorable Eugene R. Brouse, in the absence of the complaining witness, attempted to elicit the nature and circumstances of the case from Howe. When Howe refused to answer, Judge Brouse, according to Howe’s allegation, subjected Howe to ridicule and a tirade of threats and abuse, demanding that Howe answer. Failing in that, Judge Brouse continued the case for one week when once again the complaining witness failed to appear. Judge Brouse dismissed the case and then assessed Howe $10 court costs to which Howe objected. Howe paid the court costs but appealed to the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, which Court ordered his $10 returned.
Howe then filed suit in the Jackson County Circuit Court alleging damages resulting from Judge Brouse’s behavior during Howe’s court appearance. The suit was dismissed on motion of Judge Brouse on the grounds of judicial immunity and on the applicable statute of limitations; on appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court that decision was affirmed, Howe v. Brouse, 427 S.W.2d 467 (1968), the Supreme Court determining that none of the acts complained of, including the alleged excessive abuse and the assessment of court costs, though perhaps in error, was subject to suit for civil damages due to the doctrine of judicial immunity.
Howe then instituted suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Judge Brouse’s behavior violated Howe’s civil rights. Judge Collinson dismissed this action on summary judgment.
Judge Collinson in his memorandum opinion (not reported) noted the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court and stated that it was a correct application of the doctrine of judicial immunity. However, Judge Collinson rested his decision on the ground that having fully litigated this action in the state courts, the doctrine of res judicata applied and was a complete defense to Howe’s attempt to institute this action in the federal courts. The judgment of the Missouri Supreme Court was conclusive on all matters which were or might have been litigated in that action. Norwood v. Parenteau, 228 F.2d 148 (8th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 955, 76 S.Ct. 852, 100 L.Ed. 1478 (1956) and Frazier v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 363 F.2d 861 (5th Cir. 1966).
We believe Judge Collinson has applied the proper ease law and we agree with his decision. Plaintiff, whether by design or inadvertence, chose to pursue his action in the state courts. All of his legal claims and allegations of fact were fairly considered. His case was dismissed and concluded on the legal ground of judicial immunity, thus accepting his version of the facts. He therefore has no legitimate complaint about his case not being considered on its merits. He cannot reinstitute the same cause of action, against the same individual, based on the same array of facts, merely by changing legal theories and sovereign-ties. This is a classic case for the application of the doctrine of res judicata.
Judgment 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