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:
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HUNTZINGER. SAME v. THATCHER.
Nos. 2646, 2647.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 17, 1943.
Warren F. Wattles, of Washington, D. C. (Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, J. Louis Monarch, and F. E. Youngman, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., on the brief), for petitioner.
Egbert Robertson, of Chicago, 111., and Richard F. Barrett, of New York City, for respondents.
Before BRATTON, HUXMAN, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.
The question presented in these cases is whether loss sustained by the respondent taxpayers in the exchange of the stock of American-LaFralnce and Foamite Corporation for stock and warrants in American-LaFrance and Foamite Corporation, Inc., should be recognized for tax purposes under Section 112 of the Revenue Act of 1936 and allowed as a deduction from gross income under Section 23(e) of the Act, 26 U.S.C.A.Int.Rev.Acts, page 828.
The old corporation had outstanding both common and preferred stock, but under the question presented it is not necessary to make note of these separate classifications and reference will be only to the stockholders of the corporation. In addition to its stock, it also had outstanding bonds or notes. Some of these notes were owned by stockholders, but the greater portion was in the hands of persons who were not stockholders.
The facts are not in dispute and are substantially these: The old corporation became financially involved and instituted a reorganization proceeding under the bankruptcy law. The new corporation was formed. It had only one class of stock, common stock, of the par value of $10 per share. All of the assets of the old corporation were transferred to the new corporation and the stockholders of the old received stock in the new in exchange for their stock. The noteholders also received stock in the new corporation in exchange for interest due on the notes of the old corporation. Respondents were both stockholders and noteholders in the old corporation and exchanged their stock and interest on their notes in that corporation for stock in the new. They admittedly suffered a loss in the exchange.
Less than eighty per cent of the stock in the new corporation was issued to the stockholders of the old solely in exchange for their old stock. But if there is added to the stock they received for their old ■stock the stock they received for the interest on their notes, then more than eighty per cent of the stock in the new corporation was in the hands of the stockholders of the old corporation.
If respondents made the exchange of their stock as a part of the reorganization within the meaning of Section 112(g) of the Act, they are not entitled to deduct the losses sustained in rendering their income tax return. Whether the, transaction constituted such a reorganization must be determined from Section 112(g) (1) (C) of the Act. Under it, the proceedings constitute a reorganization if, after the transfer of the assets of the old corporation, the stockholders were in control of the new corporation. Subsection (h) defines “control” as the possession of at least eighty per cent of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote, and at least eighty per cent of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock.
The stockholders of the old corporation admittedly owned more than eighty per cent of the common stock of the new corporation, which was the only stock it had, and thus owned more than eighty per cent of the voting power. But respondents contend, and the Board of Tax Appeals found, that in determining whether the old stockholders owned the required amount of voting stock to constitute control, there should be taken into account only the stock they received in exchange for their stock. It excluded the stock they received in exchange for the interest due them on the notes. With this we cannot agree.
The language of Subsection (h) is clear and free from ambiguity. It states in language too clear for doubt that if, after the transfer of the assets of the old corporation to the new, the old stockholders own at least eighty per cent of the voting stock and eighty per cent of all stock, they are in control as defined by Clause (C). Under Section 112(b) (3), no gain or loss is recognized if stock or securities are exchanged solely for stock or securities in the new corporation. All the stockholders of the defunct corporation exchanged for their stock in the new company was their interest in the old corporation.
The facts of this case clearly distinguish it from Helvering v. Southwest Corporation, 315 U.S. 194, 62 S.Ct. 546, 86 L.Ed. 789, upon which the Board of Tax Appeals based its decision. It was there held that the transaction was not a reorganization under Qause (B) because other consideration than the voting stock of the new corporation was given in exchange for the assets of the old company and that it was not a reorganization under Clause (C) because control was not in the old stockholders. In that case a majority of the stock in the new company was issued to participating creditors who apparently did not have the right to vote in the old corporation. All the court held was that in determining control under Clause (C) the stock issued to the creditors cannot be added to that issued to stockholders to reach the requisite amount of stock.
Congress did not say that in determining the question of control by the old stockholders you must separate stock they received for securities from that which they received for their stock, and in the absence of such an expression from Congress, we may not make such an addition to the law. All that Congress said was that to constitute control the old stockholders must own eighty per cent of the voting stock and eighty per cent of all outstanding stock in the corporation, and this they do in this case.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to redetermine the tax in accordance with this opinion.
MURRAH, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.
Herein referred to as the old corporation.
Herein referred to as the new corporation.
Sec. 112, Revenue Act of 1936, as amended by Revenue Act of 1939:
“Definition of reorganization. As used in this section and section 113—
“(1) The term ‘reorganization’ means (A) a statutory merger or consolidation, or (B) the acquisition by one corporation, in exchange solely for all or a part of its voting stock, of substantially all the properties of another corporation, but in determining whether the exchange is solely for voting stock the assumption by the acquiring corporation of a liability of the other, or the fact that property acquired is subject to a liability, shall be disregarded; or the acquisition by one corporation in exchange solely for all or a part of its voting stock of at least 80 per centum of the voting stock and at least 80 per centum of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock of another corporation, or (O) a transfer by a corporation of all or a part of its assets to another corporation if immediately after the transfer the transferor or its shareholders or both are in control of the corporation to which the assets are transferred, or (D) a recapitalization, or (E‘) a mere change in identity, form, or place of organization, however effected. * * *
“(2) The term ‘a party to a reorganization’ includes a corporation resulting from a reorganization and includes both corporations in the case of a reorganization resulting from the acquisition by one corporation of stock or properties of another.
“(h) Definition of control. As used in this section the term ‘control’ means the ownership of stock possessing at least 80 per centum of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote and at least 80 per centum of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock of the corporation.” 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Acts, page 859.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0