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.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case. 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:
LEA v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11736.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 15, 1947.
Rehearing Denied March 17, 1947.
Edwin H. Grace, of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Herbert W. Christenberry, U. S. Atty., and N.E. Simoneaux and Robert Weinstein, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before HOLMES, McCORD, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
WALLER, Circuit Judge.
When his demurrer to an indictment, brought under Section 100, Title 18 U.S. C.A., was overruled, the defendant pleaded nolo contendere, was adjudged guilty, and received the sentence of the Court. He now appeals, assigning as error the overruling of the demurrer.
An indictment should state every material fact necessary to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him so that he would be able successfully to interpose a plea of former jeopardy against any other prosecution for this same offense. The indictment here alleges: That the defendant did unlawfully, feloniously, and fraudulently embezzle and convert to his own use certain monies of the United States; that said monies were the proceeds of the sale of certain United States War Savings Bonds, which sales were made by the United Theatres, Incorporated; that the United Theatres, Incorporated, were duly authorized to act as issuing agent for the sale of said bonds; that the defendant came into lawful possession of said monies as an agent and employee of said United Theatres, Incorporated. Thus the ownership of the money, the source from whence it came, the lawful possession of the money by the defendant, as an agent, or employee, of the United Theatres, Incorporated, and the felonious conversion of the money by the defendant to his own use, were alleged.
We think: That the allegation that “the defendant having then and there come into the lawful possession of said monies • as an agent and employee of the said United Theatres, Incorporated,” should be taken in connection with the other allegations in the indictment and', so considered, it is an allegation of fact; that the facts alleged are sufficient to show that when the defendant, as an agent or employee, came into the lawful possession of said money, his possession was in trust; that the indictment is amply sufficient to sustain a plea of former jeopardy to any other indictment for the same offense, and that no omission therein hampered the defendant in preparing his defense.
Sec. 556, Title 18 U.S.C.A., is as follows:
“No indictment found and presented by a grand jury in any district or other court of the United States shall be deemed insufficient, nor shall the trial, judgment, or other proceeding thereon be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form only, which shall not tend to the prejudice of the defendant.”
Sec. 391, Title 28 U.S.C.A., commands that we “shall give judgment after an examination of the entire record before the court, without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
The defendant, by his plea of-nolo con-tendere, admits the truth of the facts appropriately alleged in the indictment, and we think the facts alleged are sufficient to charge him with the crime of embezzling monies of the United States as defined in the statute under which the indictment here was brought.
The judgment of the Court below is affirmed.
The indictment alleged that the defendant “did unlawfully, feloniously and fraudulently embezzle and convert to his own use certain, monies and property of the monies and property of the United States of America, to-wit, the sum of 818,333.64, a further description of which is unknown to yonr Grand Jurors, the said sum of $38,133.64, being the proceeds of sales of certain United States War Savings Bonds, Series E, made by United Theatres, Incorporated during the period aforesaid, the said United Theatres, Incorporated being then and there duly authorized and qualified to act as issuing agent for the sale of said United states War Savings Bonds, Series E, and the said defendant having then and there come into the lawful possession of said monies as an agent and employee of the said United Theatres, Incorporated; * * *”
“§ 100. (Criminal Code, Section 47.) Embezzling public moneys or other property. Whoever shall embezzle, steal, or purloin any money, property, record, voucher, or valuable thing whatever, of tho moneys, goods, chattels, records, or property of the United States, shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
In Moore v. United States, 160 U.S. 268, 16 S.Ct. 294, 295, 40 L.Ed. 422, the crime of embezzlement was defined as “the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom such property has been entrusted, or into whose hands it has lawfully come.”
Cf. Wilson v. United States, 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 659.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1