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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilbert Eloy RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 79-5548
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 1, 1980.
Ramon Garcia, Edinburg, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
James R. Gough, John M. Potter, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HILL, GARZA and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18.
GARZA, Circuit Judge:
The Appellant was convicted by a jury of conspiring to possess, with intent to distribute, and possessing, with intent to distribute, a quantity of marijuana pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), respectively. The Appellant’s only challenge on appeal concerns the denial by the trial court of one defense question during cross-examination of one of the witnesses. Having reviewed the record and finding no denial of Appellant’s right of confrontation, we affirm.
During the Appellant’s trial, he admitted that he possessed the marijuana, but he asserted the defense of entrapment. The Appellant contended that he had been pressured into selling the marijuana by Marcelino Ramirez, who was a paid informant. When the informant Ramirez took the stand, the government elicited the fact that he was a paid informant. The government also brought out that Ramirez had previous convictions for alien smuggling and writing bad cheeks.
During cross-examination of the informant, defense counsel inquired whether he had ever been indicted in a federal district court in Brownsville. The government objected, and defense counsel informed the court that the question was asked to impeach the informant’s credibility and to show bias and motive. The court asked defense counsel if he meant to discover if there was a pending indictment. Defense counsel responded to the court that he was posing the question of whether the informant had “ever been indicted.” Based upon this representation, the court sustained the objection.
Defense counsel then asked the informant if the government had given any promises not to prosecute him in exchange for his testimony, to which the informant responded negatively. Defense counsel also questioned the informant on his experience as an informant and his manner of receiving payment. Defense counsel inquired as to the informant’s method of finding marijuana dealers. Defense counsel also questioned the informant on his prior convictions. The Appellant now contends that the court’s sustaining of the government’s objection denied him his right of cross-examination guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
A trial court, based upon its sound discretion, may limit the scope and extent of cross-examination, and its decision will not be disturbed on review unless an abuse of discretion is present. United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535, 550 (5th Cir. 1979). This discretion, however, is subordinate to the defendant’s right of cross-examination sufficient to satisfy the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Vasilios, 598 F.2d 387, 389 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1049, 100 S.Ct. 742, 62 L.Ed.2d 737 (1980). Although normally, a witness may only be impeached by showing a prior conviction, the existence of an arrest or an indictment may be admissible to demonstrate an informant’s potential for giving false testimony in order to protect himself. See Hart v. United States, 565 F.2d 360, 362 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Crumley, 565 F.2d 945, 949 (5th Cir. 1978).
Although defense counsel was forbidden from discovering whether the informant had ever been indicted, he was able to question the informant on the existence of any promises made to him by the government. The Appellant’s ability to examine the informant on the existence of any promises made by the government allowed him to obtain the same information which he sought to obtain in the question concerning the indictments. The scope of defense counsel’s questioning definitely placed the issues of the informant’s credibility, bias and motive before the jury. Further, defense counsel was allowed to question the informant on his status as a paid informant and the methods he used in finding marijuana sources.
Therefore, it is clear that defense counsel was able to present the issues of the bias and credibility of the informant to the jury in a satisfactory manner. The essence of defense counsel’s attack upon the informant was presented to the jury. Thus, the trial court’s limitation of defense counsel’s questioning in this case did not amount to error since Appellant clearly was accorded his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination. See United States v. Goodman, 605 F.2d 870, 880 (5th Cir. 1979) (limiting of defense counsel’s questioning not a violation of Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right since the substance of the desired impeaching information had been presented to jury).
AFFIRMED.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0