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:
LANDY v. SILVERMAN.
No. 4543.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
May 16, 1951.
John N. Alberti, North Adams, Mass., (Bernard Lenhoff, North Adams, Mass., with him on brief), for appellant.
Frederick M. Myers, Jr., Pittsfield, Mass. (Frederick M. Myers, Pittsfield, Mass., with him on brief), for appellee.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.
HARTIGAN, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment, made on the court’s own motion, in favor of plaintiff-appellee who is the trustee in bankruptcy of The Cheshire Inn Corporation, the bankrupt.
The complaint alleges in substance that The Cheshire Inn Corporation was adjudged a bankrupt on April 10, 1950; that prior to January 30, 1950, the bankrupt held a Common Victualler’s license and All Alcoholic license which enabled the bankrupt to conduct the business of operating said Inn; that the bankrupt was insolvent from a period not later than December 1, 1949, and continued to be in an insolvent condition until the date of adjudication; that Landy was since December 1, 1949, the president of the bankrupt corporation and that he was fully aware of the insolvent condition of the bankrupt; that on January 30, 1950, the shareholders and directors of the bankrupt held a special meeting and voted to transfer said licenses to- Landy; that the bankrupt surrendered said licenses to the selectmen of the Town of Cheshire, Massachusetts, and caused action to be taken to transfer said. licenses to- Landy; that at the first meeting of the creditors of the bankrupt held on May 26, 1950, Landy admitted that the transfer of said licenses to him was without consideration and agreed to retransfer said licenses to the bankrupt; that Landy refuses to take any action to retransfer to the bankrupt either of said licenses; that the trustee is in no position to negotiate for a sale of the assets of the bankrupt estate until after an order has been made with reference to the re-transfer of said licenses and that delay in ordering the retransfer of said licenses may-result in the renewal of said licenses by some person other than the trustee or the successors of the bankrupt corporation, thereby resulting in forcing the trustee to sell the assets of the bankrupt at a price much less than their true value.
The complaint prayed that the court order Frank C. Landy, the defendant-appellant, to take such action as might lie within his power to accomplish the transfer of the All Alcoholic and Inn Holders’ licenses to the trustee which were formerly held by the bankrupt but are now held by Landy.
The complaint also prayed that the court decree that the- transfer of said licenses to Landy was fraudulent and void within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. A. § 1 et seq.
Landy filed an answer September 27, 1950, in which he admitted certain allegations of the complaint and denied others. In his answer he alleged that The Cheshire Inn Corporation was indebted to him for wages covering a substantial period of time approximating two years and that any action taken by The Cheshire Inn Corporation in surrendering said licenses was taken in. consideration of the corporation’s indebtedness to him. He denied that at the first meeting of the creditors of the bankrupt he admitted the transfer of said licenses to him was without consideration and that he agreed to transfer said licenses to the bankrupt.
The district court entered judgment on September 29, 1950, wherein it stated in part:
“It appearing that the pleadings clearly disclose a situation where action should be taken summarily, it is thereupon, on the Court’s own motion,
“Ordered, that summary judgment be entered for the plaintiff, and that the defendant transfer or surrender, through whatever means- are lawful, all his right, title and interest in the innholder’s license and the alcoholic beverage license, to the trustee of the bankrupt estate.”
On October 2, 1950, the district court filed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” in which it stated in part:
“1. The transfer of the All Alcoholic license and Inn Holders’ license made by the bankrupt to- the defendant on January 30, 1950 was a preferential transfer within the meaning of Section 60 of the Bankruptcy Act.
“2. This Court has jurisdiction under Section 23 of said Bankruptcy Act to order the defendant to transfer or surrender, through whatever means are lawful, all his right, title and interest in said licenses, to the trustee of the bankrupt estate.”
The district court has jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy Act. Schumacher v. Beeler, 293 U.S. 367, 55 S.Ct. 230, 79 L.Ed. 433; Collier on Bankruptcy (14th Ed.), Vol. 2, § 23.15, p. 571 et seq.
The district court heard no testimony and the pleadings do not support its conclusion that the transfer of said licenses by the bankrupt to Landy on January 30, 1950, was a preferential transfer within the meaning of Sec. 60 of the Bankruptcy Act. In re Mason, D.C., 49 F.Supp. 781; Haas v. Sachs, 8 Cir., 68 F.2d 623; Mansfield Lumber Co. v. Sternberg, 8 Cir., 38 F.2d 614; Collier on Bankruptcy (14th Ed.) Vol. 3, §§ 60.34-60.35, pp. 865-874.
Among other things, the pleadings raise a genuine issue as to whether or not Landy received a greater percentage of his debt than some other creditor of the same class. The presence of such an issue precludes summary judgment. Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. See Sprague v. Vogt, 8 Cir., 150 F.2d 795.
It is our opinion that Landy is entitled to a hearing on the issues raised in the pleadings. The court in the Sprague case, supra, said, 150 F.2d at page 801: “ * * * That one reasonably may surmise that the plaintiff is unlikely to prevail upon a trial, is not a sufficient basis for refusing him his day in court with respect to issues which are not shown to be sham, frivolous, or so unsubstantial that it would obviously be futile to try them.”
Paragraph 10 of the complaint is concerned with the fraudulent transfer of the assets of the bankrupt for the sole benefit of Landy in derogation of the rights of the creditors of the bankrupt. Landy denies this allegation. This matter may be inquired into at the hearing on the merits, especially with reference to § 70, sub. e of the Bankruptcy Act. •
Landy’s contention that the licenses here are not property is unrealistic. It was held in Fisher v. Cushman, 1 Cir., 103 F. 860, 51 L.R.A. 292, that a liquor license is “property” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act. See note to Fisher v. Cushman, 43 C.C.A. 381, 390. See Collier on Bankruptcy (14th Ed.), Vol. 4, § 70.22, p. 1107.
If, upon the hearing of this case on the merits, the district court should find that the transfer of the licenses was fraudulent or preferential, the substance of the order contained in the judgment entered September 29, 1950, would appear to be proper.
The judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion; the appellant recovers costs on appeal.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0