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:
John Edward STOWERS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 19439.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 23, 1965.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 5, 1965.
Gordon C. Gould, Redwood City, Cal., for appellant.
Manuel L. Real, U. S. Atty., John K. Van de Kamp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Div., J. Brin Schulman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Asst. Chief, Crim. Div., Phillip W. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before ORR, MERRILL, and ELY, Circuit Judges.
ELY, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, together with an alleged confederate, one Kirtley, was charged with scheming to obtain money by false pretenses and unlawfully causing interstate transmittal of the money. 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Kirtley pleaded guilty to the charge, and appellant was convicted in a jury trial. In the same trial, the jury determined that appellant was guilty of two of twelve offenses with which he alone was accused in a separate indictment. One of the two offenses of which appellant was found guilty under the separate indictment was also the violation of Section 1343 of Title 18. The other involved the interstate transmission of a telephone communication in which appellant was alleged to have conveyed threats with the unlawful intent to extort money. 18 U.S.C. § 875(d).
Shortly after their arrests, appellant and Kirtley were confined in the same cell, where they engaged in conversation. During the trial, Kirtley testified that in-the conversation, appellant had made certain statements which appellant contends were incriminating “admissions” which, under the circumstances, were improperly received as evidence.
The oral statements can hardly be characterized as “admissions.” When Kirtley initiated the conversation with the question, “I wonder how we got picked up ?”, appellant, according to Kirt-ley, replied, “You know what is going to happen if you say anything.” Kirtley testified that in the ensuing discussions, appellant attempted to persuade Kirtley to make certain representations as to Kirtley’s participation and the absence of appellant’s participation in one of the transactions. Additionally, Kirtley testified that appellant suggested that Kirtley plead guilty and promised to send Kirtley five or ten dollars per week if he, Kirtley, should be sent to prison. Finally, it was told by Kirtley that appellant threatened to kill Kirtley if the latter “took him [appellant] to prison with him.”
Regardless of whether or not the alleged statements constituted “admissions”, they were doubtless subject to inferences which were, from appellant’s standpoint, damaging if not literally incriminating. This conclusion, however, affords no sufficient basis upon which to support appellant’s claim of prejudicial error.
There is no law, constitutional or otherwise, which protects an alleged criminal against his own failure to remain mute in every environment and under all circumstances.
Immediately after his arrest, appellant requested the assistance of counsel and was told by Federal officers that he would have it. In his brief before us, it is said, “Appellant was firm in his determination not to say anything incriminating to these officers.” This firm determination, coupled with his demand for counsel, is indicative of appellants’ understanding, perhaps more than usually intelligent, of his pertinent constitutional rights.
Before there was an opportunity for consultation with counsel, appellant and Kirtley were placed in such proximity as to permit of conversation. There is no evidence that the two were so placed in furtherance of a Government plan or ruse or trick to obtain evidence of admissions on the part of either. No recording or transmittal device was concealed, as in the case of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964), upon which appellant strongly relies.
The record contains no support for appellant’s contention that Kirtley, in initiating the conversation, was acting as an agent for, or in behalf of, the Government or its officers. Kirtley denied any prosecution promise of favoritism, and there is nothing of substance to refute his denial. From the facts that Kirtley was interviewed by Federal officers on the day before his conversation ■with appellant, that Kirtley was released on bail on the second day after the questioned conversation, and that Kirtley was produced as a prosecution witness at the trial, we are urged to infer that Federal officers moved Kirtley to act in their behalf. We refuse to draw such inference.
We hold that appellant’s remarks to his confederate were not made as a result of any Government act of trickery or deceit. This being so, appellant is in no position to be relieved from his own mistaken and misdirected confidence. We find no prejudicial error, and the judgments of conviction are Affirmed.
. While the amount of Kirtley’s bail was fixed at $1000, he was accused in only one count, whereas appellant was charged with thirteen violations of law. Upon Kirtley’s plea of guilty, the district court deferred the pronouncement of sentence pending appellant’s trial. There were postponements at appellant’s request, and the record discloses that the court fairly determined that Kirtley should be released on his own recognizance so as not to suffer undue confinement because of delay for which he was not responsible.

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