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 "fiduciaries". 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, Appellee, v. ALLIED TOWING CORPORATION, Appellant.
No. 77-1403.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued May 1, 1978.
Decided July 12, 1978.
Robert L. O’Donnell, Norfolk, Va. (Morton H. Clark, Vandeventer, Black, Meredith & Martin, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Harland F. Leathers, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Civ. Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., William B. Cummings, U. S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., Morton Hollander, Chief, Appellate Section, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and WIDENER, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Allied Towing Corporation appeals from a judgment entered against it by the district court in the amount of $12,500.00 covering fourteen separate civil penalties assessed by the Coast Guard pursuant to provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(6). The penalties were assessed against Allied because of spills of petroleum products which occurred between May 1, 1974, and May 9, 1975. In each case notice of the spill was given to the Coast Guard either by Allied or at its direction as required by 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(5) which provides:
Any person in charge of a vessel or of an onshore facility or an offshore facility shall, as soon as he has knowledge of any discharge of oil or a hazardous substance from such vessel or facility * * * immediately notify the appropriate agency of the United States Government of such discharge. Any such person * * * who fails to notify immediately such agency of such discharge shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Notification received pursuant to this paragraph or information obtained by the exploitation of such notification shall not be used against any such person in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury or for giving a false statement.
Allied admits the factual allegation of each spill, but contends that the penalties assessed against it were criminal in nature and under the use immunity provision of Section 1321(b)(5) the information provided by its notification compliance was improperly used by the Government as the basis of its complaint. Allied further contends that the use of such information was violative of its rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Allied’s constitutional argument is patently without merit since a corporation is not entitled to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., 416 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 39 L.Ed.2d 812 (1974), and accordingly, the scope of use immunity under Section 1321(b)(5) is solely a matter of statutory construction. On this point, in United States v. Le Beouf Bros. Towing Co., Inc., 537 F.2d 149 (1976), the Fifth Circuit rejected an argument similar to that of Allied, stating:
The immunity provision, by its terms, extends only to “criminal” cases, while Congress in the very next paragraph expressly labeled the sanction in 33 U.S.C. § 1161(b)(5) about which Le Beouf complains a “civil penalty.” Only the most compelling demonstration of a contrary legislative intent would persuade us to ignore the plain words of the statute. The wording is unequivocal; by it Congress cannot have intended to extend immunity to civil cases, regardless of their “nature.”
Id. at 152. A like conclusion has been reached by the district courts who have had occasion to consider the question. Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 907, 924 (S.D.N.Y.1977); United States v. General Motors Corporation, 403 F.Supp. 1151, 1157-1163 (D. Conn.1975); United States v. Eureka Pipeline Company, 401 F.Supp. 934, 937-941 (N.D.W.Va.1975).
We agree with the conclusion reached in these cases that the penalty is “civil” in nature and, accordingly, the statutory immunity does not apply. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
. 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(6) reads in pertinent part as follows:
Any owner, operator, or person in charge of any onshore facility or offshore facility from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged * * * shall be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating of not more than $5,000 for each offense. Any owner, operator, or person in charge of any vessel from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged * * * shall be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating of not more than $5,000 for each offense. No penalty shall be assessed unless the owner or operator charged shall have been given notice and opportunity for a hearing on such charge. Each violation is a separate offense. Any such civil penalty may be compromised by such Secretary. In determining the amount of the penalty, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, the appropriateness of such penalty to the size of the business of the owner or operator charged, the effect on the owner or operator’s ability to continue in business, and the gravity of the violation, shall be considered by such Secretary.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0