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:
John MURRAY, Appellant, v. BRANCH MOTOR EXPRESS COMPANY and Local 557, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Appellees.
No. 82-1202.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 3, 1983.
Decided Dec. 20, 1983.
Harry Goldman, Jr., Richard P. Neuworth, Baltimore, Md., for appellant.
James A. Matthews, Jr., Francis M. Mi-lone, James F. Anderson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., Frank W. Stegman, Gebhardt & Smith, Baltimore, Md., for Branch Motor Exp. Co.
Bernard W. Rubenstein, Carl S. Taller, Edelman & Rubenstein, P.A., Baltimore, Md., for Local 557, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Before WINTER, Chief Judge, CHAPMAN, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge:
After John Murray was discharged by Branch Motor Express Company, his union ■ filed a grievance on his behalf. When the parties failed to resolve the dispute, the matter was submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator concluded that Murray’s discharge was proper in an award dated April 22, 1976.
On September 13, 1978, Murray filed an action under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, charging Branch with breach of the collective bargaining agreement, and the union with breach of its duty of fair representation by mishandling the matter. The district court granted summary judgment for Branch and the union because, in addition to the claim’s lack of merit, the action was barred by Maryland’s 30-day statute of limitations for vacation of arbitration awards which was made applicable by United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 101 S.Ct. 1559, 67 L.Ed.2d 732 (1981). While Murray’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held that the six-month statute of limitations contained in § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160, applies to actions brought by an employee for breach of contract and breach of fair representation. DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, _ U.S. _, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983).
Generally, “an appellate court must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision.” Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 281, 89 S.Ct. 518, 525, 21 L.Ed.2d 474 (1969). See United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103, 110, 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801). Murray contends, however, that DelCostello should not be applied retroactively, relying on Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07, 92 S.Ct. 349, 355, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971).
We are persuaded by Perez v. Dana Corp., 718 F.2d 581 (3d Cir.1983), that Del-Costello should be applied retroactively. In that case, the court found that, applying the Chevron test, the six-month statute of limitations was not an abrupt and fundamental shift in a doctrine on which the plaintiff relied because the prior law was erratic and inconsistent. The court also found that the purpose of the DelCostello rule and the equities of the plaintiff’s case required retroactive application of the decision. We can only add that the equities of the instant case, including the fact that Murray waited almost 29 months to file suit, do not change our conclusion. Murray’s claims against Branch and the union are barred by the six-month statute of limitations, and the judgment of the district court dismissing the action is affirmed.
The Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, without discussion of the issue, have applied DelCostello retroactively. Ernst v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc., 717 F.2d 1036 (7th Cir.1983); Hand v. International Chemical Workers Union, 712 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir.1983). See also Curtis v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 299, 716 F.2d 360 (6th Cir.1983) (dicta).

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