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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Frank FRISONE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1169, Docket 86-1085.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued March 18, 1986.
Decided June 4, 1986 .
Michael A. Guadagno, Asst. U.S. Attorney-in-Charge, Organized Crime Strike Force, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Raymond J. Dearie, U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., Donald S. Sullivan, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for appellee.
Michael H. Sporn, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before PIERCE, MINER and ALTI-MARI, Circuit Judges.
This appeal was originally heard on March 18, 1986, and decided by order dated June 4, 1986. As a summary disposition it would have no precedential value under our Local Rule § 0.23. We have decided sua sponte to publish the substance of the June 4, 1986 order in this opinion.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was arraigned on a multi-count indictment in May of 1985 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On May 16, 1985, a detention hearing was held before Magistrate Chrein at which time detention was ordered. On January 21, 1986, Judge Henry Bramwell, after independent review of the transcript of the magistrate’s hearing and consideration of arguments presented by counsel for the appellant on a motion for release, concluded that there was probable cause to believe that appellant had been involved in at least three crimes of violence, that appellant had not rebutted the presumption drawn from the conclusion that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the safety of the community, and that, even if appellant had rebutted such a presumption, there was clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the safety of the community.
On March 18, 1986, appellant challenged the district court’s ruling before this court on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support detention, and that his continued detention pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq. (the “Bail Act”) violated the Constitution. After argument, the application was denied from the bench on all grounds asserted except the constitutional grounds, as to which decision was reserved pending decision of another case which involved this very issue and which was sub judice at the time of argument. That case has recently been decided, see United States v. Melendez-Carrion, 790 F.2d 984 (2d Cir.1986). Hence, we address the remaining issue herein.
In Melendez-Carrion, the appellants challenged, inter alia, the constitutionality of continued pretrial detention under the Bail Act, where such detention was based upon grounds of dangerousness to the community. Judge Newman found the statute facially unconstitutional in authorizing, even for a brief time, such pretrial incarceration of a competent adult criminal defendant. Chief Judge Feinberg, concurring in the result of Judge Newman’s opinion, found continued confinement for a period over eight months, solely on the ground of dangerousness, a violation of due process since it inflicted punishment without an adjudication of guilt. Judge Timbers vigorously dissented from each of these views. The effect of Judge Feinberg’s and Judge Newman’s decisions render unconstitutional the continued pretrial detention of the appellant herein on the basis of the dangerousness prong of the Bail Act.
Frisone has been denied bail and detained for nearly twelve months on federal charges solely on the ground of dangerousness under the Bail Act. We are constrained to find that the continued confinement of appellant is affected by the majority position as to result in Melendez-Carrion. Consequently, we vacate the order of the district court and remand for the district court to determine whether there are conditions of release which will reasonably assure appellant’s appearance as required, and, if so, to establish appropriate conditions of release. We withhold issuance of the mandate herein pending issuance of the mandate in Melendez-Carrion.
Vacated and remanded with instructions.

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