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:
David Simpson WINDSOR, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 84-3102
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 29, 1984.
David Simpson Windsor, II, pro se.
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, Francis G. Weller, New Orleans, La., for defendantappellee.
Before REAVLEY, POLITZ and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
POLITZ, Circuit Judge:
The ever increasing volume of appeals filed with this court threatens to inundate our docket. The possibility of that spectre requires that we adhere firmly to rules governing the conduct of the appellate process, including the dismissal of patently frivolous appeals. This appeal founders for two reasons: appellant has not complied with our briefing rules and his appeal is totally devoid of merit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
David Simpson-Windsor, II filed suit against Pan American Airways seeking damages in the amount of four hundred trillion dollars “on the grounds of grand theft ... with the intent to commit nuclear sabotage on Flight 759,” a flight which tragically crashed immediately after takeoff from Moisant International Airport killing all aboard. Appellant alleges that Pan American Airways conspired with the family of President Kennedy and with President Carter to cause the crash of Flight 759. Appellant further alleged that President Carter had “illegally accumulated over 40 trillion dollars in assets — based on ideas [President Carter] had stolen from the plaintiff’s patents and copyrights on file in Washington, D.C.” According to plaintiff, President Carter was joined in this grand theft scheme by Presidents Kennedy, Ford and Reagan. Inexplicably, Presidents Johnson and Nixon were implicitly exonerated from this presidential miscreancy.
Plaintiff-appellant then amended his pro se pleadings seeking the arrest and detention of the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., identified as Matilda Winfield alias Adams alias King alias Sykes, because she posed a threat to the Roman Catholic Church and its episcopacy. Specifically, appellant alleges that Mrs. King planned to take over an order of Black Nuns and become its Mother Superior, all as a prelude to her ultimate plan to “install herself as a self-declared ‘Black Popess.’ ” In all of this, plaintiff sought to foil St. Peter who was actually the Black Devil and the father of Judas Iscariot.
Demonstrating remarkable restraint, the district court carefully reviewed the pleadings and attachments and concluded that plaintiff had not asserted a legally cognizable claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). This ruling is eminently correct. Plaintiff advances claims that are absolutely and irretrievably without a semblance of merit. No federal court, trial or appellate, is obliged to allot more than a modicum of scarce judicial resources to such claims. Summary disposition was in order in the trial court; it is equally in order here.
Appeal DISMISSED.

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