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:
GARGILL v. AMERICAN GUARANTY CORP.
No. 4640.
United States Court of Appeals, ■First Circuit.
Jan. 2, 1953.
Benjamin Goldman, Boston, Mass. (Louis J. Shrair and Gargill & Shrair, Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.
Bernard Kaplan, Boston, Mass. (Hubert C. Thompson and Libman, Kaplan & Packer, Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered after a trial without a jury dismissing an action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy of a Massachusetts corporation to recover payments made over a period of several months by the bankrupt to the defendant. Federal jurisdiction rests upon diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
The payments involved were made on a promissory note payable in instalments, and the plaintiff’s action is bottomed on the proposition that it was beyond the bankrupt corporation’s powers (ultra vires) for it to make the payments. Two reasons are advanced for this. First it is said that the corporation was merely an accommodation endorser of the note upon which it made the payments, and that it had no power under Massachusetts law to endorse for accommodation only. Second it is said that to the defendant’s knowledge the money borrowed on the note was not for the use and benefit of the corporation, but instead was intended for, and in fact was used by, one DiTulio to finance his purchase of all the stock in the corporation.
The case was tried on oral testimony and exhibits, and while that evidence provides some factual basis for the plaintiff’s position, the District Court thought otherwise. It found that DiTulio signed the note in question, which was payable to the bankrupt, and that the bankrupt endorsed the note over to the defendant. It also found that as part of the transaction the bankrupt gave the defendant a mortgage of all its corporate assets, and DiTulio gave the defendant an assignment covering all the corporation’s stock which he had just purchased. And it found that thereafter the bankrupt made payments on the note in accordance with its terms. But the court said that it could not “subscribe to the Trustee’s theory that the loan was really being made to DiTulio personally so that he could purchase the stock.” It found that there were pre-existing corporate debts to two banks which DiTulio wanted discharged, that the defendant advanced money on the note “to the corporation in order that it might discharge its own corporate debts, substituting the defendant for the two banks,” and that there was “nothing irregular about this transaction between the corporation and the defendant.”
The entire transaction in which the note under consideration played a part was a complicated one involving the sale of all the corporation’s stock to DiTulio and discharge of all the corporation’s debts as a prerequisite thereto. No useful purpose would be served by describing it in detail. It will suffice for us to say that we find evidence in the record to sustain the District Court’s findings of fact, and that those findings support that court’s ultimate conclusion.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

Choices:

Answer: 1