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:
Clovis Carl GREEN, Jr., Appellant, v. Carl WHITE, Superintendent, Missouri Training Center for Men, Appellee.
No. 78-1714.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 2, 1979.
Decided Jan. 8, 1979.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 22, 1979.
Clovis Carl Green, Jr., pro se.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen. and Michael H. Finkelstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for appellee.
Before BRIGHT, STEPHENSON and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On July 19, 1978, plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming he was unconstitutionally transferred from the Missouri Training Center for Men in Moberly to the Missouri State Penitentiary in Jefferson City because of his religious practices and beliefs and because he had earlier filed suit against Missouri prison authorities. Plaintiff sought $1,000,000 for violation of his constitutional rights and a declaration that the Human Awareness Universal Life Church is a legitimate religion that must be recognized by defendant, the Superintendent of the Moberly facility. On September 18, 1978, Judge Meredith, of the United States District Court of Missouri, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s petition with prejudice.
In an accompanying memorandum, Judge Meredith explained that the record established that plaintiff was transferred from Moberly, a medium security prison, back to Jefferson City, a maximum security prison, only after he threatened to kill certain prison officials and after an administrative board hearing was held on the incident. [The chronological data sheet of the Missouri Division of Corrections shows: The threat was made April 14,1976, when plaintiff stated, “Guess I will have to kill a few people when I get out of here”; plaintiff admitted making the statement when he appeared before the administrative hearing board on April 15,1976, although he argued that he was only joking; and that in recommending plaintiff be transferred to Jefferson City for purposes of controlling plaintiff’s behavior, the administrative hearing board stated in its report of April 15, 1976, that plaintiff posed a threat to the safety of the personnel at the Moberly institution and was an antisocial and devious criminal.]
The entire record and, in particular, plaintiff’s chronological data sheet from the Missouri Division of Corrections containing the signed April 15, 1976, report of the administrative hearing board supports the district court.
Plaintiff claims on appeal the district court ignored his claim that defendant violated his freedom of religion. The complaint states that plaintiff was threatened with transfer from Moberly to Jefferson City if he did not stop his religious activities and that subsequently he was transferred. In holding that plaintiff was transferred after he had threatened on April 14, 1976, to kill certain prison officials and “in the best interests of the prisoner and of other prisoners and prison officials,” the district court did rule by implication that plaintiff was not being transferred for his religious practices.
In conclusion, the records of the Missouri Division of Corrections show and the district court found plaintiff was transferred for the good of plaintiff, the other prisoners, and the prison staff because of plaintiff’s antisocial behavior and not for his religious practices or litigious proclivities.
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