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:
KNIGHT v. UNITED STATES.
No. 10000.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec. 13, 1941.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1942.
No appearance was entered for appellant.
Clyde O. Eastus, U. S. Attyj, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Wm. P. Fonville, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Dallas, Tex., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
McCORD, Circuit Judge.
Winter Knight was tried and convicted on five counts of an indictment charging violations of the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 338, and was sentenced generally to serve a term of eighteen months imprisonment and pay a fine of one thousand dollars. From the judgment and sentence entered he has appealed.
Knight is here contending that the court below erred in overruling his motion for a peremptory instruction of not guilty; in excluding and refusing to admit certain evidence offered by him; in charging the jury; and in failing to give three specially requested charges.
The lengthy record of the five-day trial discloses that Winter Knight was working under contract for Sinclair Refining Company as its bulk sales agent at Tahoka, Texas. He was charged with the duty of receiving and selling oils, lubricants, and other products supplied to him by Sinclair. The products remained the property of Sinclair until they were sold, and Knight was under duty to collect for all such products sold by him and immediately account to Sinclair for the moneys so received. It was the further duty of Knight to make three weekly reports to Sinclair; each report to show a record of all sales, collections, and deposits made up to the time of such report.
The period of time covered by the proof in the case was from January 1, 1940, to September 25, 1940. It was shown that during this period of time Knight made a practice of selling Sinclair’s products and depositing the money in the bank in his own name; that he commenced and continued to fall behind with the sales payments or remittances to the company; that he would sell to customers for cash and, after depositing the money in the bank in his own name, would falsely report to the company that the sales had been made on credit; that he would from time to time make payments which purported to cover other and different sales for which he owed; that he would order his bookkeeper to make out reports to the company, which reports were false, and which he admitted to be false; and that he continued the practice of mailing false reports to the company, and thereby secured shipments of additional products to him until his shortages and defalcations reached such a large sum that he was no longer able to cover and hide them with his false reports. When an auditor of Sinclair Refining Company made an audit of his accounts on August 28, 1940, it was discovered that Knight was behind in his accounts, and that he had made collections which he had failed to report. When confronted with the fact that his fraudulent practice had been discovered, Knight admitted the concealed shortages, aggregating $4,638, and acknowledged that these amounts were in all things correct. He further admitted on the witness stand that he had made the false reports, and that they had been mailed to Sinclair by him or at his direction. It is not now disputed that he was able to secure additional products from Sinclair by mailing such false documents to the company. Moreover, after the audit, defendant gave to Sinclair a list of customers who had bought and paid cash for Sinclair products, and who had been reported as having made such purchases on credit. Many of these customers testified that they had paid cash for such products, and Sinclair gave credit to them for the several amounts of money defendant had taken and converted to his own use.
Appellant contends that when he mailed the false reports he did not have the intent to embezzle moneys belonging to Sinclair or to in any manner defraud that company. At the trial he was permitted to offer evidence taking a wide range, and to the effect that agents of Sinclair knew he was selling products to farmers and charging them as sales to gins so that he could procure a lower price; that the agents knew he was making false reports; and that while such agents did not instruct him to make such reports, they knew of his practice. The agents named by him expressly denied his testimony in this regard.
Finally, the court refused to permit Knight to testify that he had an independent contract with Sinclair for the hauling of its products; that it had failed to pay him the full amount agreed upon for such services; and that he was making false reports, securing products, selling them, and withholding the money so that he could secure payment for such contract hauling. This offered evidence was nothing more than an effort to excuse and justify the fraudulent and felonious acts of the defendant. Clearly, it was not relevant. The indictment was under the mail fraud statute and in substance charged that the defendant devised a scheme and artifice for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, and used the mails to execute it. The devising of the scheme, the false pretenses and representations, and the use of the mails to carry them and thus execute the scheme, were specifically established, indeed admitted. These facts proven or admitted, the case under the indictment was completely made out. Knight’s self-justification, his purpose or motive ulterior to the use of the mails to obtain the money by false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, his counter claims or defenses to a civil action for the money thus obtained, would not be a defense to the indictment. Such evidence would be wholly irrelevant. We need not determine whether the matters defendant sought to offer would be admissible in defense if he were sued for the money, or if he were indicted in the State court for swindling. We need only determine, as we do, that they were not relevant as a defense to the indictment brought in this case.
The contention touching the court’s charge and the refusal to give the specially requested charges is without merit. A court is not required to charge the jury in any particular form of words, and it is not necessary for the charge given to be framed in words suitable to counsel. We have examined the court’s charge and found that it fairly stated the law applicable to the case, and that it was, in fact, altogether favorable to the appellant. This is all that is or can be required, and the court committed no error in refusing to give the requested charges. Coffin v. United States, 162 U.S. 664, 674, 16 S.Ct. 943, 40 L.Ed. 1109; Schackow v. Government of Canal Zone, 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 625.
The evidence made a case for the jury and the court properly refused to direct a verdict of not guilty.
We find no reversible error in the record. The judgment is 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