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.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case. 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:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. MARVAL POULTRY COMPANY, Inc., Respondent.
No. 8324.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 20, 1961.
Decided June 22, 1961.
Allison W. Brown, Jr., Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and William J. Avrutis, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., on brief), for petitioner.
George V. Gardner, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Marval Poultry Company, Inc., the operator of a poultry processing plant at Dayton, Virginia, was found by the National Labor Relations Board to have committed unfair labor practices in violation of Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1, 3). The Board has now brought this petition for enforcement of its order.
Resisting the petition for enforcement, the employer emphasizes evidence that members of its supervisory staff were related to, or friendly with, individual employees who were shown by testimony to have been the victims of coercive action by the supervisors. The employer would draw the inference that all of the threats, surveillance, and other acts by supervisors, such as crowding automobiles off the highway, were more in the nature of “horseplay” than intimidation of the employees. It may be that the inference the employer would draw is a permissible one, but the evidence on this branch of the case clearly supports the inference drawn by the Board. Threats by a supervisor to an employee of discharge for union activity possibly may have been intended by the supervisor as “horseplay,” but surely the Board was not required to find that they were so understood by the victims who testified without indicating any such understanding.
The Board also found that two employees had been wrongfully discharged because of their union activity. We accept the findings, as we must, for there is positive and direct evidence to support them.
This proceeding presents only factual questions which have been fully considered and resolved by the Board. Since the findings are adequately supported by the record, the differences between the parties are beyond the scope of review in this court.
Enforcement granted.
. 129 N.L.R.B. No. 86.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1