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:
BRANSON v. REICHELDERFER et al.
No. 5730.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Argued March 9, 1933.
Decided April 10, 1933.
George E. Sullivan, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
W. W. Bride, Corporation Counsel, and Vernon E. West and Walter L. Fowler, Assts. Corporation Counsel, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from a deeree in the Supreme Court of the District, in a condemnation proceeding, overruling exceptions by the landowner to the verdiet of a jury fixing the value of lot 804 in square 355.
Two expert witnesses testified for the District concerning the value of the property. One placed a value of $5,000 upon the improvements and $2,847 upon the land (containing 1,139.57 square feet), or a total of $7,847. The other expert for the District placed a value of $3,081.29' upon the improvements and $3,418.71 upon the land, making a total of $6,500.
Four experts testified for the landowner; the lowest estimate as to the value of the improvements was $5,378.88, while the lowest estimate -as to the value of the land was $6,-000.
The jury returned a verdiet* of $4,558.28, It will be observed that this amount would be exactly at the rate of $4 per square foot for the land. This award was almost $2,000 less than the lowest total estimate of the District experts.
Counsel for the District express the opinion that the jury, -after viewing the premises, reached the conclusion that the improvements on lot 804 and the other lots within the condemnation area were of such a character as to add nothing to the value of the property. But the evidence, including photographs, clearly discloses that the improvements on lot 804 are in a mueh better state of repair and much more valuable than the improvements on the other lots.
It is apparent, therefore, that the jury must have ignored the evidence as to the value of the improvements on lot 804. Under section 487 of the D. C. Code (1924), as amended by the act of March 1,1929, e. 439, 45 Stat. 1437, 1438 (section 46, title 25, D. C. Code, 1929), the court is granted “power to vacate and set any appraisement aside, in whole or in part, when satisfied that it is unjust or unreasonable.” In) the present case there is such a discrepancy between the value of the land, including improvements, as fixed by the jury on the one hand, and the testimony of the witnesses for both the District and the property owner on the other, as to convince us that the appraisement is unjust and. unreasonable.
The deeree will therefore be reversed, with costs, to the end that a new appraisement as to lot 804 may be had.
Reversed.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0