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:
James W. VOYLES, Appellant, v. Patricia HARRIS, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, Appellee.
No. 80-1320.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 1980.
Decided Dec. 19, 1980.
Robert J. Blackwell, Flat River, Mo., for appellant.
D. Samuel Borin, Asst. Regional Atty., Dept, of Health and Human Services, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before HEANEY, ROSS and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant James W. Voyles challenges the Department of Health, Education and Welfare Secretary’s order denying him Social Security disability benefits. The district court affirmed the administrative decision; we reverse.
The appellant was initially injured in 1970 when a car body fell on him while he was working for General Motors Corporation as an assembly line worker. The accident seriously injured his lower back. A few months later, he underwent a transabdominal spinal fusion which failed to relieve his symptoms. In 1974, he had a second spinal operation involving a posterior fusion. On Voyles’ first application for benefits, he was awarded a closed period of disability commencing July 1, 1973, and ending September 30,1974. No appeal was taken from the Appeals Council decision refusing to extend the period of disability. Voyles then filed a second application for benefits, contending that he was permanently and totally disabled from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. That application was denied. Voyles filed a final application for disability benefits on February 7, 1978, the denial of which forms the basis for this appeal.
There is conflicting medical testimony in the record on the extent of Voyles’ disability, but it is conceded that Voyles could not return to the job he previously held, and all of the competent testimony indicates that the type of work, if any, that Voyles would be able to do is severely limited. Because Voyles is unable to return to the job he had held prior to his disabling injury, the burden shifted to the Secretary to produce evidence by a vocational expert showing that there were jobs available that suited Voyles’ qualifications and capabilities. E. g., Woodard v. Secretary of Dep’t of HEW, 626 F.2d 46 (8th Cir. 1980); Warner v. Califano, 623 F.2d 531 (8th Cir. 1980); see Wroblewski v. Califano, 609 F.2d 908 (8th Cir. 1979).
The Secretary has failed to establish in this proceeding, through the testimony of a vocational expert or other evidence, that Voyles was able to perform any jobs that were in the employment market. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is reversed and remanded with directions to order the Secretary to either grant Voyles his requested benefits or to hold an additional evidentiary hearing for purposes of determining whether there existed gainful activity for which Voyles was qualified as of December 31, 1977, the date his insured status under the Social Security Act expired.

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