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:
The Honorable Robert MANDEL, Appellant, v. The Honorable: Ralph J. ERICKSTAD; William J. Paulson; Vernon R. Pederson; Paul M. Sand and Gerald W. Vande Walle, all in their capacity as Justices of the North Dakota Supreme Court, Appellees.
No. 80-1662.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 15, 1981.
Decided May 13, 1981.
John 0. Holm, Dickinson, N. D., for appellant.
Allen I. Olson, Atty. Gen., Rick D. Johnson, Sol. (argued), Murray G. Sagsveen, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, N. D., for appellees.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, ROSS, Circuit Judge, and ROBINSON, Senior District Judge.
Richard E. Robinson, Senior District Judge, District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.
LAY, Chief Judge.
Robert Mandel, a candidate for North Dakota district court judge, brought this action under section 1983 of title 42 challenging the validity of Administrative Rule 7-1980 promulgated by the North Dakota Supreme Court. Judge Mandel sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the individual justices- of the North Dakota Supreme Court and the North Dakota Secretary of State, Ben Meier. The district court, the Honorable Bruce M. Van Sickle presiding, dismissed the action holding that the justices promulgated Administrative Rule 7-1980 in their legislative capacity and, therefore, are immune from suit brought under section 1983. See Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 100 S.Ct. 1967, 64 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980). As against the Secretary of State, the district court held that Judge Mandel’s allegation did not constitute a constitutional violation and furthermore, was factually in error. We find that Judge Mandel’s allegations do not allege any denial of a federal statutory or constitutional right and, therefore, we affirm the district court.
On May 16, 1980, the North Dakota Supreme Court adopted Administrative Rule 7-1980 (Emergency) which changed the manner in which district court judges in the state’s seven judicial districts are elected to office. The rule creates specific judgeships within each judicial district for which persons seeking office must declare themselves candidates. Candidates run only against those individuals also seeking a particular judgeship. Prior to this rule change, all candidates for district judge within each district ran against all other candidates, with the top vote-getters taking office. No notice or opportunity to be heard was afforded anyone prior to adoption of the emergency rule. However, on May 16, 1980, the clerk of the North Dakota Supreme Court mailed notice of a hearing to be held on June 3 concerning permanent adoption of Administrative Rule 7-1980 (Emergency). A hearing was held on June 3 and interested persons, including Judge Mandel, were heard by the supreme court. The court permanently adopted Administrative Rule 7-1980 on June 4, 1980.
On June 19,1980, Secretary of State Meier prepared and sent to all county auditors a notice of all offices to be represented on the ballot for the primary election which was held on September 2,1980. This notice was prepared pursuant to the requirements of Administrative Rule 7-1980.
In passing this rule change, the North Dakota Supreme Court relied on sections 87 and 93 of the North Dakota Constitution as authority for its action. Section 87 provides:
The supreme court shall have authority to promulgate rules of procedure, including appellate procedure, to be followed by all the courts of this state; and, unless otherwise provided by law, to promulgate rules and regulations for the admission to practice, conduct, disciplining, and disbarment of attorneys at law.
The chief justice shall be the administrative head of the unified judicial system. He may assign judges, including retired judges, for temporary duty in any court or district under such rules and regulations as may be promulgated by the supreme court. The chief justice shall appoint a court administrator for the unified judicial system. Unless otherwise provided by law, the powers, duties, qualifications, and terms of office of the court administrator, and other court officials, shall be as provided by rules of the court.
Section 93 provides:
The state shall be divided into judicial districts by order of the supreme court. In each district, one or more judges, as provided by law, shall be chosen by the electors of the district. The term of office shall be six years, and a district judge shall hold office until his successor is duly qualified. The compensation of district judges shall be fixed by law, but the compensation of any district judge shall not be diminished during his term of office.
To determine whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the pleadings must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, resolving all doubts in favor of the sufficiency of the complaint. Where conclusory allegations are made, the court will measure the adequacy of the complaint only on the factual claims actually made. Wilson v. Lincoln Redevelopment Corp., 488 F.2d 339, 341 (8th Cir. 1973).
Judge Mandel’s complaint makes several conclusory allegations of violations of the federal constitution. However, the thrust of the factual allegations in his complaint is that the North Dakota Supreme Court did not have the authority under the constitution or laws of North Dakota to promulgate Administrative Rule 7-1980. That question is one of state law. The final arbiter of North Dakota law is the Supreme Court of North Dakota and the federal courts are bound by its interpretation of state law even though it relates to the exercise of the court’s own powers.
We find that Judge Mandel’s complaint fails to assert sufficient facts to make out a right to relief under the Constitution or laws of the United States.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The clerk stated by affidavit that notice was sent to the following individuals:
1. Executive Director and Board of Directors of the State Bar Association of North Dakota;
2. Presiding judges and other district court judges;
3. Chairmen of various standing committees of the North Dakota Supreme Court;
4. Director of the Legislative Council;
5. Associated Press;
6. Clerks of district courts;
7. Judges of county courts with increased jurisdiction;
8. Clerks of county courts with increased jurisdiction;
9. Attorney General;
10. Executive Committee of the North Dakota Trial Lawyers Association; and
11. President of the Court Reporters’ Association.

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