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:
REIN v. UNITED STATES.
No. 5264.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Feb. 6, 1934.
John S. Pyle, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Horatio S. Dumbauld, U. S. Atty., John A. McCann, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., and James I. Marsh, Asst. U. S. Atty., all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the United States.
Before WOOLLEY, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
WOOLLEY, Circuit Judge.
In a naturalization proceeding Ustin Lysenak, an alien applying for citizenship, produced Abram Rein as one of the “two credible witnesses” required by the statute (8 USCA § 379) to testify that the applicant is a person of good moral character and that, in his opinion, he is in every way qualified to be admitted as a citizen of the United States. In response to a question propounded by the Examiner of the Bureau of Naturalization, Rein testified under oath that he had never been arrested or charged with violation of any law of the United States, particularly with violation of the National Prohibition Law (27 USCA), whereas in truth he (Rein) had been arrested and convicted for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Accordingly, Rein was indicted on four counts and convicted of this and like offenses for violating section 80 of the Act of March 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1103, R. S. § 5395, 18 USCA § 142, which provides: “Whoever, in any proceeding under or by virtue of any law relating to the naturalization of aliens, shall knowingly swear falsely in any case where an oath is made or affidavit taken, shall be” fined and imprisoned. From the judgment of sentence Rein has taken this appeal on two grounds: One that the indictment, alleging a false answer merely as to arrest, does not charge an offense against the United States; the other, that the proof adduced thereunder did not establish an offense against the United States. Both questions turn on the same point: Whether the false answer of the witness as to his arrest was material to the naturalization of the applicant, then under consideration, within the familiar rule that to constitute the crime of perjury or false swearing, the testimony must be material to the matter in hand, and within the equally familial1 rule of trials that a question in respect to the arrest.of a-witness — an accusation distinguished from a conviction— is inadmissible because insufficient to impeach the witness. Coyne v. United States (C. C. A.) 246 F. 120; Glover v. United States (C. C. A.) 147 F. 426, 8 Ann. Cas. 1184; Souza v. United States (C. C. A.) 5 F.(2d) 9; 2 Wigmore on Evidence, §§ 980, 982.
The latter rule, whose purpose is to obtain from the witness the facts of the case on trial, does not apply with equal force to naturalization proceeding's where the purpose is not to impeach the witness or to lay grounds for impeachment with respect to facts to which he has testified but is to obtain his “opinion” with respect to the applicant’s qualification for citizenship.
Naturalization proceedings differ from trial proceedings wherein rights are asserted, contested and determined. Naturalization proceedings, where no rights are involved, are merely administrative of the naturalization laws and constitute an inquiry into the applicant’s fitness for citizenship, involving his good moral character, his outlook on society, his adherence to organized government, and, particularly, his disposition with relation to the theory of our government. Grant of citizenship is a favor which an alien asks of the sovereign and which the sovereign may withhold altogether or may grant on conditions it has named of which, in this instance, one is that, first of all, he must show himself to be a man of good moral character. 1 le can make this showing in part by becoming a witness in his own behalf and in part out of the months of witnesses qualified to speak. The requirement of truth and the qualification of those purporting to speak the truth apply equally to the applicant and his witnesses, for on the truth of what they say depends the valid grant of citizenship. United States v. Saracino (C. C. A.) 43 F. (2d) 76; United States v. DeFrancis, 60 App. D. C. 207, 50 F.(2d) 497.
The testimony of a witness vouching for the good moral character of the applicant is valuable or valueless according as Ms own moral character is good or bad. A witness, who, if an applicant for citizenship, is himself disqualified, would, obviously, not be qualified to testify to the qualification of another. The good moral character of one person can scarcely be proved by a witness who has none. It follows, therefore, that the proceeding of inquiry extends to the witness also. So the question whether he had been arrested and charged with the violation of any law of the government, a grant of whose citizenship he was invoking by his testimony, goes directly to his qualification to give an opinion as to the good moral character of the applicant. A false answer that conceals his lack of qualification to testify or that heads off further inquiry is precisely what the statute forbids. Although the mere arrest of a person does not prove that he is a man of bad moral character, the inquiry in those proceedings as to arrest of a witness is but the first step of others that normally would follow in ascertaining the qualification of the witness to testify. And so the question here asked of the defendant — as to whether ho had ever been arrested — was, we think, proper, at least preliminarily, for according as he truthfully answered “No,” the government (other matters being satisfactory) would grant the privilege of citizenship and according as he falsely answered “No,” the government was thwarted in its inquiry and was thereby induced improperly to grant citizenship to one not shown to he qualified to receive it. Thus, in view of the nature of the proceeding, the false answer became material. Of the same opinion evidently was the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit as indicated in Gaglione v. United States, 35 F.(2d) 496, which is a case precisely like this one except the party who falsely testified in respect to his arrest was the applicant himself instead of the applicant’s witness. The provision of the statute (“whoever * * * shall knowingly swear falsely”) makes no distinction between those testifying. Referring to United States v. Bres-si (D. C.) 208 F. 369, for a general consideration of the subject and citing Gaglione v. United States, supra, as an authoritative decision, we find the indictment in this ease charged a,n offense against the United States and the proof established the offense. It fri-lows the judgment must be 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