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:
Raymond CASIAS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 7572.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
April 27, 1964.
William D. Swenson, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Arthur L. Fine, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Lawrence M. Henry, U. S. Atty., was with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
LEWIS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of' the District Court for the District of Colorado denying defendant’s motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A history of the prosecution is pertinent to the-present appeal.
In 1961, defendant was convicted upon two counts of an indictment charging him with the receipt, concealment and sale of narcotic drugs unlawfully imported in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174. The judgments of conviction were appealed to this court and we reversed for error committed during the course of the trial. Casias v. United States, 10 Cir., 302 F.2d 513. After remand, the case was set for re-trial on July 13, 1962. On such date, defendant appeared with his counsel and informed the court that he was willing to waive indictment and plead guilty to the charge contained in an information alleging that he had unlawfuly sold, dispensed and distributed a quantity of narcotics in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a). Upon entering such a plea, the United States Attorney indicated his intention to dismiss the indictment charging violations of 21 U.S.C. § 174. The court accepted the plea of guilty to the information and granted the motion to dismiss the indictment. Defendant now asserts that the information to which he pleaded guilty is inadequate to protect him against double jeopardy and thus void and subject to attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Emphasis is placed upon the fact that the information does not contain the name of the purchaser of the narcotics.
The name of the purchaser is not an element of an offense charged under 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) and an indictment or information not setting forth the name is not constitutionally defective for such lack and subject to collateral attack. Nor need an indictment or information plead an offense in such detail as to be self-sufficient as a bar to further prosecution for the same offense. The judgment constitutes the bar. Martin v. United States, 10 Cir., 285 F.2d 150. And the extent of the judgment may be determined from an examination of the record as a whole, Clay v. United States, 10 Cir., 326 F.2d 196; Hester v. United States, 10 Cir., (dec. January 1964) or, indeed, proved by any other competent means. Cf. McDowell v. United States, 10 Cir., 330 F.2d 920.
In the case at bar the record clearly indicates that appellant's plea of guilty to the information is an outgrowth of and contained within the unlawful conduct detailed at his earlier trial. Appellant is in an unusually favorable position to prove the exact nature of his present judgment should that need ever arise.
The judgment is affirmed.
. The information alleged: “That on or about October 27, 1960, in the City and County of Denver, in the State and District of Colorado, RAY CASIAS, also known as Rickard, did unlawfully sell, dispense and distribute a quantity of a narcotic drag, to-wit: 320 milligrams of heroin, not in or from the original stamped package, in violation of 26 USC 4704(a).”
. To the extent, if any, that this statement conflicts with the views expressed by the Seventh Circuit in Lauer v. United States, 320 F.2d 187, we respectfully refuse to follow Dauer as did the Eighth Circuit similarly refuse in Jackson v. United States, 325 F.2d 477. See also, Robison v. United States, 9 Cir., 329 F.2d 156.

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