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:
Bobby Joseph RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION and Joseph S. Petrovsky, Warden, Appellees.
No. 83-1438.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 1983.
Decided March 13, 1984.
Robert G. Ulrich, U.S. Atty., Danid C. Jones, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, Mo., for appellees; Michael Stover, Atty., U.S. Parole Com’n, Chevy Chase, Md., of counsel.
Edward B. Rucker, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Before ROSS, ARNOLD and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his writ of habeas corpus. He claims that the application to him of parole regulations adopted after he committed his offenses violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. The district court found this claim to be without merit. We affirm.
Appellant Bobby Joseph Richardson is serving concurrent sentences for two bank robbery convictions. One sentence is for ten years and was imposed March 25, 1977 by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; the second is a fifteen-year sentence imposed July 15, 1977 by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The New York bank robbery occurred on August 26, 1976 and the North Carolina bank robbery occurred on December 8, 1976. Both offenses were committed while the 1976 severity ratings and guidelines of the United States Parole Commission (the Commission) were in effect. The Commission revised these guidelines in 1980, as permitted by statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 4203.
Richardson’s initial parole hearing was held on April 1, 1980. The Commission, using the 1980 guidelines instead of the 1976 guidelines that were in effect at the time of his offense, rated his criminal behavior at “Greatest II” severity, because he had either been convicted of or admitted participation in six bank robberies. See 28 C.F.R. § 2.20 (1980). The initial parole determination in Richardson’s case, made on June 2, 1980, set a presumptive parole date of March 1, 1984, which required a total of 87 months in custody. This determination called for less than the minimum of 100 months of incarceration recommended by the Commission’s 1980 guidelines for prisoners with Richardson’s record. The Commission’s leniency was based on Richardson’s favorable institutional adjustment and educational progress while incarcerated, including his relatively clean behavior record, completion of his General Education Diploma certificate, participation in a drug abuse program, and his positive response to efforts at rehabilitation.
Richardson pursued an administrative appeal from the initial parole determination. That appeal resulted in an administrative decision, issued during the pendency of this action before the district court, affirming the initial parole determination.
If we are to reach the Constitutional issue that Richardson raises, he first must show that he would have received a more favorable parole determination under the 1976 guidelines than he received under the 1980 guidelines. He has failed, however, to do so. Under the 1976 guidelines, appellant’s salient factor score would have been two (the same as under the 1980 guidelines). As a prisoner with six bank robberies, appellant almost certainly would have been placed in the “greatest” severity category. This would have been true even though a single robbery was rated in the “very high” category (the next lower category from “greatest”), because the guidelines permit an increased severity rating for a prisoner with multiple separate offenses. See 28 C.F.R. § 2.20 general note D. Under the “greatest” severity category, Richardson’s recommended period of incarceration would have been 72 or more months. This category had no specific upper limit, but the guidelines did state that the period should be “greater than above— however, specific ranges are not given due to the limited number of cases and the extreme variation in severity possible within the category.” 28 C.F.R. § 2.20 (1976).
The 1980 guidelines place appellant in the newly-formed “Greatest II” category, which carries a presumptive parole date requiring 100 or more months of incarceration. The Commission exercised its discretion to set a parole date requiring 87 months of incarceration, which was 13 months less than that recommended by the guidelines. Thus, the result reached under the 1980 guidelines was not only fully possible under the 1976 guidelines, which recommended a minimum of 72 months, but illustrates that the Commission still retains discretion to go outside the guidelines and give individual treatment to prospective parolees.
Richardson now denies his participation, which he previously admitted, in four of the six bank robberies considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. This denial raises a question of credibility that already has been determined by the Commission. It is not the duty of the district court to reassess the credibility of the information used by the Commission in reaching its decision. Brest v. Ciccone, 371 F.2d 981, 982-3 (8th Cir.1967).
Aside from his denial of participation in the additional four bank robberies, Richardson’s pleadings in this case present only conclusory, unsupported assertions that the 1976 guidelines would have resulted in more favorable treatment in his case. As this was the only basis for Richardson’s challenge to the Commission’s decision, the district court did not err in dismissing his petition. The order of the district court is affirmed.
. We note that the Ex Post Facto Clause issue raised by the appellant in this case is one of first impression in this Circuit, see Hayward v. U.S. Parole Commission, 659 F.2d 857 (8th Cir.1981), and one that has not been decided by the Supreme Court. See Geraghty v. United States, 445 U.S. 388, 390 n. 1, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 1205 n. 1, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1979). Our disposition of this case makes it unnecessary to reach the issue whether claims of the kind raised by Richardson are cognizable under the Ex Post Facto Clause upon a showing of prejudice resulting from application of the later guidelines, and we take no position on that issue here.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0