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:
CASALDUC v. DIAZ et al.
No. 3639.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Feb. 18, 1941.
Rehearing Denied March 20, 1941.
Harry M. Besosa, of San Juan; Puerto Rico, for appellant.
Henri Brown, of San Juan, Puerto. Rico, for appellees.
Before MAGRUDER, and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges, and FORD, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellees move to dismiss this appeal, which is brought under Section 25 of the Bankruptcy Act as amended, 52 Stat. 855, 11 U.S.C.A. § 48. The ground of the motion is that the notice of appeal was not filed with the District Court within the statutory period of forty days from the date of the entry of the order.
The last day on which an appeal could have been taken was Saturday, September 14, 1940. According to the record, the notice of appeal was filed in the office of the clerk of the District Court on Monday, September 16, 1940.
An affidavit by counsel for appellant, in explanation of the late filing, states that counsel went to the office of the clerk on Saturday afternoon, September 14, between 2 and 4 P. M. to file the notice of appeal; that the office was closed and no person was there to take the said notice; that counsel then slid the notice under the door of the clerk’s office. On Monday counsel called at the clerk’s office and was told by the clerk that the notice had not been found, so a new notice was - thereupon prepared and filed.
The clerk of the District Court certifies that she knows nothing of any attempt by counsel to get in touch with her on Saturday; that her correct telephone number and residence appear in the telephone directory; that since 1926 the office has been closed on Saturday afternoon in accordance with Rule 41 of the District Court, reading as follows:
“The office of the clerk of this court shall be kept open every day from 8:30 o’clock A. M. to 12 o’clock, and from 1:30 P. M. to 5 P. M., except Sundays and legal holidays. On Saturdays he shall keep his office open until noon.”
On these facts we hold that the notice of appeal was not filed with the District Court on September 14, within the meaning of Rule 73(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Lewis-Hall Iron Works v. Blair, 57 App.D.C. 364, 23 F.2d 972. See W. J. White Co. v. Winton, 41 Cal.App. 693, 183 P. 277. Therefore the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
“Filing” means delivery of the paper into the actual custody of the proper officer. The Washington, 2 Cir., 16 F.2d 206, 208; Lewis-Hall Iron Works v. Blair, 57 App.D.C. 364, 23 F.2d 972, 974. In the latter case the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had determined a deficiency against a taxpayer. By statute the taxpayer had a period of sixty days within which to file before the Board of Tax Appeals a petition for redetermination of the deficiency. By rule of the Board its office at Washington, D. C., closed at 4:30 P. M. At 7:10 P. M. of the final day the taxpayer slid a petition through the slot of the door of the room where mail addressed to the Board was usually delivered, and there the Board found it the next morning, one day late. It was held that the Board was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition, because it was not filed within the sixty-day period.
It is contended that Rule 41 of the District Court providing that on Saturday the clerk’s office shall be kept open until noon is in conflict with Rule 77(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 77(a) and (c) reads:
“(a) District Courts Always Open. The district courts shall be deemed always open for the purpose of filing any pleading or other proper paper, of issuing and returning mesne and final process, and of making and directing all interlocutory motions, orders, and rules. * * *
“(c) Clerk’s Office and Orders by Clerk. The clerk’s office with the clerk or a deputy in attendance shall be open during business hours on all days except Sundays and legal holidáys. All motions and applications in the clerk’s office for issuing mesne process, for issuing final process to enforce and execute judgments, for entering defaults or judgments by default, and for other proceedings which do not require allowance or order of the court are grantable of course by the clerk; but his action may be suspended or altered or rescinded by the court upon cause shown.”
The term “business hours” is not defined in the rule. In its natural sense, the term means those hours during which persons in the community generally keep their places open for the transaction of business. The long usage in Puerto Rico, as in many other places, is that business hours on Saturdays do not extend to the afternoon. See Lopez v. Cortes, 35 P.R.R. 577. The District Court had full authority to provide by rule for the closing of the clerk’s office on Saturday afternoon. Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if it applies at all to jurisdictional statutes, gives the appellant no support, for the rule recognizes the existence of half holidays, and provides that in spite of the closing of offices during half of the day no additional time will be allowed for the filing of a paper.
This does not mean, as appellant supposes, that his statutory right of appeal has been curtailed by the fractional part of a day. His argument, if sound, would be equally applicable if the clerk’s office were kept open until 5 P. M. on Saturday and someone wanted to file a notice of appeal later during that day. Rule 77(a), quoted above, covers this situation in providing that the District Courts shall be deemed always open for the purpose of filing any paper. A person wishing to file a notice of appeal after closing hours on the last day may seek out the clerk or deputy clerk,, or perhaps the judge (but see In re Gubelman, 2 Cir., 10 F.2d 926, 929), and deliver the notice to him out of hours. The notice of appeal would then be filed within the statutory period.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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

Choices:

Answer: 1