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 "fiduciaries". 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:
STONE v. MICHALSKI et al.
No. 10816.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 13, 1949.
Harry J. Lippman, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
Joseph W. Louisell, Detroit, Mich., for appellees.
Before HICKS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This action was instituted by the trustee in bankruptcy, seeking among other things to set aside a sale of the bankrupt’s property consummated prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy. The bill of complaint alleged that the sale in question was in pursuance of a fraudulent and wrongful conspiracy entered into by the defendants. The District Court found that no fraud or collusion of any kind existed in the sale, and that no conspiracy existed between the appellees and the bankrupt, and gave judgment against the trustee.
On May 3, 1945, Frances Kolon filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy under which she was adjudicated bankrupt on May 4, 1945. The schedules in bankruptcy showed the principal creditor to be one Catherine Wieczorek, guardian of John Wieczorek, who had theretofore procured a judgment for personal injuries against the bankrupt in the state court in the amount of $5,320.
In April, 1945, a writ of execution was secured by the judgment creditor, under which the sheriff of Wayne County, Michigan, seized certain furniture and fixtures belonging to the bankrupt and used in the operation of a beauty parlor in the city of Detroit, Michigan. On April 9, 1945, the sheriff sold these fixtures and furniture at public sale to Mary Plotkowski, mother of the bankrupt, who purchased them as the highest bidder. The bankrupt was absent from the sale, and knew nothing of the purchase. The purchase price of $1,150 paid by Mary Plotkowski was remitted by ■the sheriff to the judgment creditor in partial satisfaction of the judgment.
It is uncontradicted on this record that the funds used by Mary Plotkowski in purchasing the assets of the bankrupt were her own funds. The record shows by clear and satisfactory evidence, Cf. Eberline v. Prager, 209 Mich. 322, 176 N.W. 428, that the funds in question were derived from Mary Plotkowski’s savings from a grocery and meat business formerly carried on by her and her husband, and from the sale in 1941 of certain real property belonging to Mary Plotkowski. While the fixtures and furniture were restored to the beauty parlor and the bankrupt operated it on a salary basis until about September 1, 1946, the assets in question at no time subsequent to April 9, 1945, were or became the property of the bankrupt.
The findings of fact made by the District Court are amply sustained by the evidence, and its conclusions of law are correct.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1