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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anis JUREIDINI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 87-5039.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 5, 1988.
Decided May 20, 1988.
Lisa Bondareff Kemler (William B. Mof-fitt, Alexandria, Va., on brief), for defendant-appellant.
Liam O’Grady, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Henry E. Hudson, U.S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge, and ELLIS, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
This case presents an unusual form of plea agreement whose concept frustrates the legitimate function of the Parole Commission and whose implementation frustrated the bargain of the parties. We remand the case to the district court with directions to fashion an appropriate remedy.
I.
On December 17, 1986, appellant John Jureidini pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute more than one kilogram of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and one count of interstate travel for purposes of an unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(1). In exchange for his guilty plea the government agreed that, for purposes of parole consideration, the total amount of cocaine distributed by appellant was less than five kilograms. The expectation was that, because of this agreement, the Parole Commission would classify Jureidini as having committed a category six offense, which, under Parole Commission Rules, would make him eligible for parole after serving forty to fifty-two months of his sentence. If the amount of cocaine involved exceeds fifteen kilograms, the offense would be classified as a category eight, and the defendant would have to serve one hundred or more months before being eligible for parole.
Prior to sentencing, a presentence report was prepared by the probation office. The report indicated that 28.5 kilograms of cocaine were distributed during the conspiracy. Defendant was sentenced on February 27, 1987 to serve a term of eight years on count one and three years on count two, to run concurrently. After sentencing, defense counsel moved to excise from the presentence report the reference to the 28.5 kilograms of cocaine since consideration of that information by the Parole Commission would be inconsistent with the terms of the plea agreement.
The court refused to strike the quantity of cocaine from the presentence report, but made a specific finding that the amount of cocaine involved in appellant’s case was less than five kilograms. The plea agreement, presentence report, and the court order finding the amount of cocaine involved to be less than five kilograms, were then sent to the Parole Commission. Based on the information that the conspiracy involved “extremely large scale amounts of more than 18.75 kilograms of cocaine,” the Parole Commission’s preliminary assessment of Jureidini’s conduct placed him in offense category eight.
Jureidini appealed, alleging breach of the plea agreement.
II.
When the government agreed to limit the quantity of cocaine involved in this case to less than five kilograms, the parties anticipated that appellant would be classified as an offense category six for purposes of parole. The government stated as much in the hearing on Jureidini’s motion to modify the presentence report. These clear expectations were frustrated when appellant was preliminarily classified as a category eight as a result of information provided to the Parole Commission indicating that the quantity of cocaine involved exceeded 18.75 kilograms.
This frustration of the bargain is due in large measure to the highly improvident nature of the plea agreement itself. The agreement seemingly contemplates either limiting the information made available to the parole board or dictating the action to be taken by the parole board in a particular case. Either course frustrates the Parole Commission’s duty to determine when release is appropriate for a particular defendant. See United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 188-89, 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2242-43, 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979). As a result, when the Parole Commission reached a decision contrary to that anticipated by the plea agreement, the purpose of the plea agreement was never fulfilled.
Regardless of the reasons for the frustration of the bargain, that frustration calls into question the validity of the plea. “[W]hen a plea rests ... on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 499, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). To ensure the voluntariness and validity of appellant’s plea, the court has a duty to ensure that the bargain represented by the plea agreement is not frustrated. See United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 300-03 (4th Cir.1986); Correale v. United States, 479 F.2d 944, 947-49 (1st Cir.1973). The appropriate relief is determined by the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The district court is in the best position to determine whether the ends of justice are best served through specific performance, see, Davis v. United States, 649 F.Supp. 754, 759 (C.D.Ill.1986), by ordering some other form of equitable relief, see Correale, 479 F.2d at 949-50, or by rescinding the plea agreement. See Santobello, 404 U.S. at 262-63, 92 S.Ct. at 498-99. We leave it to the sound discretion of the district court to fashion whatever relief may be appropriate in this case.
We emphasize that this plea bargain was exceedingly ill-advised. Nothing in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure appears to authorize the form of plea agreement in this case. We take comfort in the thought that we will not again encounter this species of agreement, for the Assistant United States Attorney has assured us that the agreement in issue here is the first and last of its kind.
For the foregoing reasons, we remand this case to the district court to fashion such relief as is required by the circumstances of this case.
REMANDED.
Specific performance here would mean binding the Parole Commission to the plea agreement on the theory that "[b]oth the United States Attorney and the Parole Commission are agents of the Government and are therefore bound by what are, in effect, Government promises.” Davis, 649 F.Supp. at 759. That such a course might interfere with the Parole Commission’s performance of its own statutory obligations is, however, a matter that may bear on the exercise of equitable discretion by the district court.

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