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. Edward J. MESHESKI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13087.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Jan. 30, 1961.
Philip G. Marshall, Milwaukee, Wis., James E. Doyle, Madison, Wis., for appellant.
Edward G. Minor, U. S. Atty., Howard C. Equitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for appellee.
Before KNOCH and CASTLE, Circuit Judges, and PLATT, District Judge.
KNOCH, Circuit Judge.
Defendant was indicted in twenty counts charging him with the offense of knowingly and willfully attempting to evade and defeat the payment of taxes in violation of Section 145(b), Title 26, U.S.C., Internal Revenue Code of 1939, or of the comparable Section 7201, Title 26 U.S.C., Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
The facts are not in dispute. Defendant was in the business of preparing tax returns for others and had been engaged in that business for .some years. Having prepared the returns and having obtained money from the taxpayers for transmittal to the Director of Internal Revenue, he failed to file the returns and diverted the money to his own uses.
The District Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that no count stated facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States.
The defendant waived jury trial. The District Court found him guilty. He was fined $1,000 and placed on probation for five years. Special conditions of probation were imposed. Defendant brought this appeal. He states the sole contested issue to be:
“Is a person who converts money entrusted to him by another for the payment of such other’s income tax by failing to turn it over to the Internal Revenue Service guilty of a felony within the meaning of Section 145(b), Internal Revenue Code of 1939 or the comparable Section 7201, Internal Revenue Code of 1954?”
Defendant argues that the willful failure to file returns, submit information or pay taxes, is, at worst, a misdemeanor under Section 145(a) or the comparable Section 7203, but that defendant here has been improperly charged with a felony for mere passive failure to file returns and pay taxes. Thus, he eon-tends, willful failure by the taxpayer himself would constitute a mere misdemeanor, but defendant’s willful failure to file the same return is alleged to constitute a felony.
It is conceded by defendant that persons other than the taxpayer have been-, successfully prosecuted under the felony section. In these cases, however, the-defendant had engaged ip some such a,ct tivity as preparing and filing fraudulent returns, or conspiring with the taxpayer by keeping fraudulent books or hiding assets. Tinkoff v. United States, 7 Cir., 1936, 86 F.2d 868; Maxfield v. United States, 9 Cir., 1945, 152 F.2d 593; United States v. Borgis, 7 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 274.
Neither defendant nor the government has cited any published case directly in point. The parties are agreed that mere failure to file a return and pay a tax does not constitute a willful attempt, to evade or defeat the tax. There must, be something more, some affirmative positive act to attempt to defeat or evade-the tax. Spies v. United States, 1943, 317 U.S. 492, 500, 63 S.Ct. 364, 87 L.Ed. 418; United States v. Bardin, 7 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 255, 260 ; Bridgeforth v. United States, 6 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 451, 453.
The government argues that defendant did such additional affirmative acts as must render him guilty of a felony. It is asserted that he prepared the returns and received payment from the taxpayers in cash or in checks payable to his order. He then prepared his own checks payable to the District Director of Internal Revenue, and envelopes addressed to that official, which he exhibited to the taxpayers, who were also given receipts and assured that their tax obligations were discharged. Thus defendant forestalled investigation by the taxpayers who would not thereafter be expecting to receive either their cancelled •checks or receipts from the District Director.
After careful and extended consideration, this Court has concluded that the •defendant’s reprehensible actions, designed to hinder detection of the strictly local crime of embezzlement, do not constitute such affirmative conduct as clearly and reasonably infers a motive to evade or defeat tax.
The judgment of the Court below is therefore reversed.
. The pertinent sections read:
“§ 145. Penalties
“(a) Failure to file returns, submit information, or pay tax. Any person required under this chapter to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by law or regulations made under authority thereof to make a return or declaration, keep any records, or supply any information, for the purposes of the computation, assessment, or collection of any estimated tax or tax imposed by this chapter, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return or declaration, keep such records, or supply such information at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
“(b) Failure to collect and pay over tax, or attempt to defeat or evade tax. Any person required under this chapter to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this chapter, who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax, and any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this chapter or the payment thereof, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more that $10,000, or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.” I.K..O. 1939.
“§ 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. * * * ”
“§ 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return (other than a return required under authority of section 6015 or section 6016), keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.” I.R.C.1954.

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