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:
William S. RUTLEDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALUMINUM, BRICK AND CLAY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION; Lawrence A. Holley, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 82-7001
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 2, 1982.
George C. Longshore, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.
John C. Falkenberry, Birmingham, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, JOHNSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
GODBOLD, Chief Judge:
Appellant appeals from the district court’s denial of his request for injunctive relief. We affirm.
Rutledge was a regional director of the Southeastern states for the union. He attended a union convention in 1981 as a delegate from his local and during the convention campaigned actively for a presidential candidate who lost the election. The winner, appellee Holley, soon transferred Rutledge from his region to serve as regional director for the west coast. Rutledge alleges that Holley knew that his [Rutledge’s] life had been threatened by union members in Los Angeles previously. Rutledge refused the transfer and began picketing the union offices. Holley withdrew the transfer and fired him.
Appellant claimed that appellees violated 29 U.S.C. §§ 411(a)(1) and (2), which guarantee union members the right to freely participate in elections and to express their views about candidates and union business, by transferring and then firing him. He also alleged that the union violated 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(5) by discharging him without notice of the charges and a hearing. Finally, he contended that he was terminated without “just cause” as required by the union’s constitution. Rutledge asked for declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages. After a hearing, the district court denied the request for injunctive relief on the ground that he had not established a likelihood of success on the merits, relying in part upon Wambles v. Teamsters, 488 F.2d 888 (5th Cir. 1974).
Denial of a preliminary injunction lies within the discretion of the district court and is reviewable on appeal only for abuse of discretion. Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders v. Scoreboard Posters, 600 F.2d 1184, 1187 (5th Cir. 1979). We find no abuse of discretion, particularly in light of Finnegan v. Leu, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1867, 72 L.Ed.2d 239 (1982), which recently resolved a conflict among circuits in favor of the position taken by the former Fifth Circuit in Wambles, supra. The Court held in Finnegan that 29 U.S.C. §§ 411(a)(1) and (2) do not prohibit a union president from choosing a staff loyal to him as long as the union status of those fired remains unaffected. The Court also observed that § 411(a)(5) does not require the union to give notice and a hearing before removing a union officer from his position. The section only applies to the suspension of union membership. - U.S. at -, 102 S.Ct. at 1871, 72 L.Ed.2d at 245.
We agree with the district court that Rutledge is not likely to prevail on his claims after Finnegan. The district court’s finding that Rutledge’s membership in the union has not been revoked by his discharge is supported by the complaint and the evidence. See Record, Volume 1 and 2 and Volume 2 at 91-92. Also, the court’s preliminary conclusion that appellant’s picketing interfered with the union’s legal obligations to provide regional representation seriously enough to outweigh his right of free speech was within the court’s discretion.
The denial of injunctive relief is AFFIRMED.
. Finnegan v. Leu, supra, does not foreclose all claims of retaliatory discharge. See - U.S. at -, 102 S.Ct. at 1873, 72 L.Ed.2d at 247. However, the facts of this case so closely parallel those in Finnegan that Rutledge would have difficulty prevailing on his claims.

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