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:
BLOOD v. HUNTER, Warden.
No. 3124.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
June 25, 1945.
James R. Blood, pro se.
Eugene W. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan. (Randolph Carpenter, U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
MURRAH, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying discharge in a habeas corpus proceedings.
In October, 1934, two indictments were returned in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, against petitioner and a codefendant. The first indictment contained four counts, charging petitioner with forging and counterfeiting the signature of the postmaster at Catoosa, Oklahoma, on two postal money orders, and with having passed, uttered and published the respective money orders, all in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 347. The second indictment charged petitioner with burglary of the post office at Catoosa, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 315. Petitioner entered pleas of guilty to all counts in both indictments and was sentenced to five years on each count in the first indictment, to run consecutively, and to a term of five years on the only count in the second indictment, to begin at the expiration of the sentence imposed under the first, making a total sentence of twenty-five years.
Previously, in October, 1939, petitioner sought his release by habeas corpus proceedings in the same trial court, alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. The trial court found that petitioner intelligently and competently waived his right to counsel and this court affirmed. Blood v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 113 F.2d 470.
Apparently encouraged by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819, the petitioner commenced this proceedings on August 14, 1944, and in order to bring himself within the rationale of that case alleged that after his arrest on July 13, 1934, he was held in jail until the following October 11, without being taken before any judicial officer for arraignment, and that while being so detained a confession was taken and used against him in the trial of his case. He does not allege that the confession was obtained by threats or coercion, but rests his case solely upon the contention that the failure of the arresting officers to immediately take him before a committing officer for arraignment, as provided by 18 U.S.C.A. § 595, and the use of the confession obtained before arraignment, constituted grounds for release under the doctrine of the McNabb case.
On these issues the trial court conducted an appropriate inquiry, at which the petitioner testified in substance that after being arrested in Oklahoma City on July 13, 1934, by the City Police he was taken to the city jail and turned over to the Postal Inspector, and at that time gave a written confession of his guilt. That on the following day he entered a .plea of guilty to an indictment theretofore returned against him in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, charging violation of the Federal mail fraud statute (18 U.S.C.A. § 338) and was thereupon sentenced to a term of five years. That after the sentence was imposed the trial court advised him that if he would go to Tulsa to answer the charges against him in the Northern Judicial District he would modify the five year sentence, and on September 15, he was transferred to the Northern District. He further testified that after arriving in Tulsa he was not arraigned, but was confined in jail until October 11, when he entered pleas of guilty to the indictments on which he was sentenced to a total of twenty-five years.
On competent evidence the trial court found that petitioner had freely and intelligently entered a plea of guilty to all counts in both indictments; that the confession was not used in the proceedings against him and he therefore was not entitled to invoke the doctrine of the Mc-Nabb case to effect his release on habeas corpus.
The proper application of the McNabb doctrine was demonstrated m United States v. Mitchell, 322 U.S. 65, 64 S.Ct. 896, 897, 88 L.Ed. 1140, in which it was emphasized that the vice at which the McNabb case was directed was “inexcusable detention for the purpose of illegally extracting evidence from an accused, and the successful extraction of such inculpatory statements by continuous questioning for many hours under psychological pressure,” and that a conviction thus obtained could not stand. But the mere fact that the accused was illegally detained in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 595, does not .of itself void a conviction based upon competent evidence. It was pointed out in the McNabb case [318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 615], that “the mere fact that a confession was made while in the custody of the police does not render it inadmissible,” and while it is the duty of arresting officers to obey the mandate of the law which requires them to bring the accused before a committing authority with reasonable promptness and failure to observe the spirit of such admonition may constitute “inexcusable detention for the purpose of illegally extracting evidence,” yet the mere failure to observe the statutory mandate does not standing alone deprive the sentencing court of jurisdictional authority to accept a voluntary plea of guilty and to impose a lawful sentence on such plea.
We are not concerned with a conviction based upon evidence obtained through a confession. The petitioner freely and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to both indictments and the confession which he gave played no part in the sentence which he now seeks to have us set aside on jurisdictional grounds. There is nothing in this record which indicates that the failure of the officers to bring the petitioner before a committing magistrate until he appeared in court to enter his pleas resulted in a denial of his constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.
18 U.S.C.A. § 595, provides in part as follows: “It shall be the duty of the marshal, his deputy, or other officer, who may arrest a person charged with any crime or offense, to take the defendant before the nearest * * * judicial officer having jurisdiction under existing laws for a hearing, commitment, or taking bail for trial * m *»_

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