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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Edwin HARE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 78-5559
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 7, 1979.
J. Louis Wilkinson, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellant.
J. R. Brooks, U. S. Atty., Michael V. Rasmussen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before AINSWORTH, GODBOLD and VANCE, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
Hare was convicted on counts One through Four charging possession with intent to distribute various drugs, and Count Five, possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony.
The defense did not move before trial to suppress the drugs and the guns as required by F.R.Crim.P. 12(b) and first raised it by objection at trial. Under Rule 12(f) this waived the point, but even if the issue of warrantless search had been properly raised it was without merit. Officers were not required to secure a warrant to search an open, unfenced, unposted densely wooded area, near a highway and not part of the curtilage of any dwelling. E. g., U. S. v. Williams, 581 F.2d 451, 453-54 (C.A.5, 1978).
There was no error in refusing to divulge the identity of an informer. Hare contended that he was entitled to know the informer’s identity on the theory that he did not know the contents of the bag hidden in the woods and containing the drugs and the guns and was merely investigating the sack to see what it contained. The informer’s tip had represented that the informer was present when Hare and his brother placed the bag in the woods and had said or implied that persons other than the Hare brothers may have been present. The bag was partially covered by rocks and vegetation. The area was so densely wooded that it was difficult to reach the location of the sack, and Hare had to crawl to get to it. Hare placed his hand into the sack but when he was flushed had not removed anything; he removed his hand and officers took possession of the sack and closed it. Shortly thereafter Hare voluntarily told his father, in the presence of the officers, that he had been “caught in a trap.” Later, at police headquarters, the officers dumped out the sack. In the bottom, underneath the drugs, were two guns. Soon thereafter Hare was overheard making a telephone call in which he told the person at the other end of the line to call his [Hare’s] lawyer and “tell him they’ve got both guns.” Hare’s theory is that, if revealed, the informer might testify that Hare, though physically present when the sack was brought into the woods and put in its location, did not know what was in the sack. Under the balancing test of Roviaro v. U. S., 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1956), this possibility (if it can be called possibility at all) is simply too attenuated to be considered a necessary part of Hare’s defense.
The contention of multiplicity in counts One through Four is raised for the first time on appeal. In any event, we do not reach it since the sentences on counts Two, Three and Four are concurrent with the sentence on count One.
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