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:
FITZGERALD v. PERKINS OIL CO. OF DELAWARE et al.
No. 10826.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
March 31, 1937.
John D. Martin, Jr., of Memphis, Tenn. (Rexford V. Wheeler, of Marion, Ark., on the brief), for appellant.
Benj. Goodman, Jr., of Memphis, Tenn. (A. G. Riley and Armstrong, McCadden, Allen, Braden & Goodman, all of Memphis, Tenn., on the brief), for appellees.
Before SANBORN and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and MUNGER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing, for failure to prosecute, an action brought by James Fitzgerald against the Perkins Oil Company and C. H. Caldwell in the circuit court of the Second circuit of Arkansas and removed by the corporate defendant to the federal court on the grounds of diversity of citizenship, a separable controversy, and fraudulent join-der. The plaintiff denied that there was a separable controversy or a fraudulent join-der, and moved to remand. Upon a hearing, the motion to remand was denied, and, the plaintiff having elected to stand upon his motion to remand, the cause was dismissed.
The only question is whether the trial court erred in failing to sustain the motion to remand.
The substance of the plaintiff’s declaration is that he, a resident of Tennessee, while employed by the defendant Oil Company, a Delaware Corporation, in its plant at West Memphis, Ark., was severely injured when his hands were caught and drawn into a cotton-seed cleaner, a machine which he was trying to clear of cotton seed and other material which had clogged it; that such injuries necessitated the amputation of both the plaintiff’s arms at or near the elbow; that the defendant Caldwell, who was superintendent of the Oil Company’s plant with the duty of hiring and discharging employees, directing their work and warning them of dangers incident thereto, hired the plaintiff a few days before his injury as an oiler; that plaintiff was only 21 years old and inexperienced in the handling of machinery of the kind used in the Oil Company’s mill; that he was directed by Caldwell to fix any machinery which he saw broken down or clogged; that the defendants knew, or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care, that the cotton-seed cleaner occasionally became clogged and was dangerous and unprotected; that plaintiff was not warned of such danger nor told the proper way tp free the machine; that plaintiff’s injury was the direct and proximate result of the joint and concurrent negligence of the defendants in failing to furnish the plaintiff a reasonably safe place to work, in carelessly and negligently ordering and directing plaintiff to fix any machinery which he saw broken down or clogged, and in failing to warn and protect the plaintiff. The plaintiff prayed for a joint judgment.
In its petition fpr removal, the nonresident defendant (the Oil Company) alleged that no cause of action against Caldwell, the resident defendant, was stated because no facts or acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance on his part were alleged which would render him liable .in damages to the plaintiff; that the duties to furnish and provide the plaintiff with a safe place to work and to protect and instruct the plaintiff, were duties for the breach of which the Oil Company alone would be liable. The Oil Company admitted Caldwell’s right and duty to hire and discharge employees; admitted the installation of the machine which caused the injury and that it occasionally became clogged with cotton seed; and admitted the plaintiff’s injury. It denied that the machine was open, unprotected, and dangerous; that plaintiff was inexperienced; that he was under Caldwell’s direction, control, or supervision; that he was directed to “fix” any clogged or broken machinery; and that his injury was proximately caused by the concurrent negligence of itself and Caldwell. It is also alleged in the removal petition that the plaintiff, at the time of his injury, had no duties whatever in connection with the machines in the cotton-seed oil mill; that he was instructed by the superintendent of the “linter and cleaner” room not to meddle with the machinery in that room; that he was familiar with cotton oil mills and the nature of the machinery used; and that Caldwell was in no sense responsible for the voluntary act of the plaintiff which caused his injury.
In his motion to remand, the appellant took issue with and denied each and every allegation and averment of the petition for removal except that of the residence of the parties..
At the hearing on the motion to remand, both parties introduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. There is no conflict in such evidence with respect to plaintiff’s employment and his subsequent injury, with respect to Caldwell’s status as superintendent of the plant, his authority to employ and instruct plaintiff, or with respect to the description and location of the machinery. There is direct conflict, however, in respect to the instructions and orders given plaintiff by Caldwell at the time of his employment. Caldwell testified that he instructed plaintiff “to take care of the motors, to oil them, and if anything went wrong with them to report it to one of the superintendents, or to Caldwell, and not to bother with anything that plaintiff didn’t know anything about; * * * not to fix machinery if he saw it break down, but to always report it to one of the superintendents.” Appellant testified that “Caldwell told him in the lint room the day the plaintiff started his regular duties that as plaintiff went through the mill, if he found anything wrong to fix it if he thought he could, and if he did not think he could fix it to call the millwright or the machinist.”
The contentions of the parties on this appeal are clearly controlled by recent decisions of this court. Wells v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. et al., 87 F.(2d) 579, decided January 26, 1937; Huffman v. Baldwin et al., 82 F.(2d) 5; Morris v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. et al., 68 F. (2d) 788. No useful purpose would be served by repeating here what was said in those cases. Under the applicable rules therein referred to, this case presents a joint cause of action against the defendants involving doubtful issues which are to be determined by the court having jurisdiction to try the case, and are not to be decided upon a motion to remand.
The judgment is, therefore, reversed, with instructions to remand the case to the state court from which it was removed.

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