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:
Michael J. CALLAHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLUOR OCEAN SERVICES, INC. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 73-1517
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 17, 1973.
William M. Bass, Houma, La., Donald V. Organ, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Frank C. Allen, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Before WISDOM, AINSWORTH and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
The plaintiff in this case brought suit under the General Maritime Law and the Jones Act to recover for injuries he sustained while he was being lifted onto a fixed drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on both claims. We affirm.
Shell Oil Company had contracted with the defendant, Fluor Ocean Services, Inc., to have the defendant'install production facilities on three new offshore platforms in the Gulf. Shell then contracted with the Cheramie Boat Company to have Fluor’s workers on the platform at which the injury in this case occurred transported there aboard the Botruc II, a large crewboat owned by Cheramie. Callahan, a painter’s helper employed by Fluor, was injured the first day of work. Callahan and a co-worker got into a large cargo basket to be lifted by a crane to the platform. While the basket was being raised some mechanical or operational misfunction of the crane caused the basket to fall rapidly toward the deck of the Botruc II. The crane operator jammed on the brakes bringing the falling basket to a sudden halt. Callahan fell to the deck of the Botruc II and sustained serious injuries.
The district court denied Callahan’s maritime law claim on the ground that Fluor was not an owner of the Botruc II for the occasion in question. He was, therefore, not liable for the unseaworthiness of the vessel. It then held that the determination that Fluor was not an owner for the occasion of the vessel was conclusive not only of Callahan’s unseaworthiness claim but of his Jones Act claim as well. We agree that Fluor cannot be held to have been the owner for the occasion of the Botruc II, and that that fact defeats Callahan’s common law claim. However, we cannot agree that a failure to establish that Fluor enjoyed sufficient control of the vessel to be held an owner for the occasion necessarily defeats the Jones Act claim. Control of the operation during which an injury is sustained may sometimes suffice to establish Jones Act liability. See Barrios v. Louisiana Construction Materials Co., 5 Cir. 1972, 465 F.2d 1157.
However, we find another ground for affirming the grant of summary judgment on the Jones Act claim. Fluor had argued in support of its motion for summary judgment that there was not sufficient evidence that Callahan was a seaman entitled to sue under the Jones Act to send the case to the jury. The district court did not reach this contention, because of its holding that Fluor did not have sufficient control of the vessel to be liable under the Jones Act. We reach the contention; and sustain it. The rule in this Circuit for determining when a jury may decide whether a plaintiff is a seaman is well-settled. That rule was announced in Offshore Co. v. Robison, 5 Cir. 1959, 266 F.2d 769, 779:
[T]his Court’s position may be stated, affirmatively: there is an evidentiary basis for a Jones Act case to go to the jury: (1) if there is evidence that'the injured workman was assigned permanently to a vessel (including special purpose structures not usually employed as a means of transport by water but designed to float on water) or performed a substantial part of his work on the vessel; and (2) if the capacity in which he was employed or the duties which he performed contributed to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission, or to the operation or welfare of the vessel in terms of its maintenance during its movement or during anchorage for its future trips.
We have repeatedly held that fixed drilling platforms like the one on which the plaintiff worked are not vessels. Texas Co. v. Savoie, 5 Cir. 1957, 240 F.2d 674, cert. denied, 355 U.S. 840, 78 S.Ct. 49, 2 L.Ed.2d 51; Nolan v. Coating Specialists, Inc., 5 Cir. 1970, 422 F.2d 377. Clearly Callahan was not permanently assigned to the Botruc II and did not perform a substantial part of his work on that vessel; nor did his employment as a painter’s helper on the platform contribute either to the function of the Botruc II or to the welfare of the vessel during its movement. Callahan was only a passenger on the crew-boat twice daily. There was thus no evidence on which a jury could have found he was a seaman, and summary judgment was proper.
Affirmed.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0