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 "fiduciaries". 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:
McCarthy v. ZERBST, Warden.
No. 1407.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 12, 1936.
J. J. Cardigan, of Superior, Wis., for appellant.
Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., and Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, McDERMOTT, and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
An indictment, containing four counts, was returned against petitioner and another in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
A motion to dismiss the first count was sustained by the court prior to the trial.
The second count charged that petitioner and another, on January 6, 1934, endeavored, by oral communication and force, to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in certain causes pending in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, by taking one French, a witness in said causes, in an automobile to a stated place, and there striking, beating, assaulting and shooting said French.
The third count charged that petitioner and another, from June 26, 1933, to January 6, 1934, conspired to deter by force, intimidation and threats, one French from testifying freely, fully and truthfully as a witness in said causes.
The fourth count charged that petitioner and another, from June 26, 1933, to January 6, 1934, conspired to injure the witness French in his person on account of his having appeared and given evidence before a grand jury impaneled and sworn in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, concerning a matter then pending in said court.
■ Count two charges an offense under 18 U.S.C.A. § 241, which in part reads:
“Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, shall endeavor to. influence, intimidate, or impede any witness, in any court of the United States * * * or who corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, shall influence, obstruct, or impede, or endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice therein, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
Counts three and four charge offenses under 18 U.S.C.A. § 242, which in part reads:
“If two or more persons conspire to deter by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States, * * * from attending such court or examination, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, * * * each of such persons shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.”
Trial by jury was waived and McCarthy was tried by the court on counts two, three and four, lie was found guilty on counts two and four and not guilty on count three. The court sentenced him to serve one year in jail and to pay a fine of $1,000 on count two, and to serve six years in the penitentiary and to pay a fine of $5,000 on count four, the sentences to run consecutively.
Petitioner contends that the court was without jurisdiction, to impose a judgment and a sentence on count four because the offense charged therein is the same as the offense charged in count three on which he was found not guilty; that count four and counts one, two and three charged the same offense; and that he has been put in jeopardy and is being punished more than once for the same offense.
Petitioner was never in jeopardy on count one. It was dismissed before trial. The general rule is that a person is not in jeopardy until he has been arraigned on a valid indictment or information, has pleaded, and a jury has been impaneled and sworn; and where a case is tried to a court without a jury, jeopardy begins after accused has been indicted and arraigned, has pleaded and the court has begun to hear evidence.
It is clear from a reading of the indictment that count two charges an offense under section 241, supra, and that counts three and four charge separate and distinct offenses defined in section 242, supra. This court in Curtis v. U. S., 67 F.(2d) 943, at page 947 said:
“The test of the identity of offenses is whether the same evidence is required to sustain them (Moorehead v. United States [(C.C.A.) 270 F. 210], supra); or whether, if what is set out in the charge to which the plea is interposed, had been proven in support of the charge, acquittal of which is asserted as a bar, it would have sustained a conviction on the latter charge.”
See, also, Morgan v. Devine, 237 U.S. 632, 35 S.Ct. 712, 59 L.Ed. 1153; Brady v. U. S. (C.C.A.8). 24 F.(2d) 399; Carter v. McClaughry, 183 U.S. 365, 22 S.Ct. 181, 46 L.Ed. 236; Burton v. U. S., 202 U.S. 344, 26 S.Ct. 688, 50 L.Ed. 1057, 6 Ann. Cas. 362; Gavieres v. U. S., 220 U.S. 338, 31 S.Ct. 421, 55 L.Ed. 489; Yep v. U. S. (C.C.A.10) 81 F.(2d) 637; Chrysler v. Zerbst (C.C.A.10) 81 F.(2d) 975, 976. In the latter case, this court said:
“Where the same transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied in determining whether there are two offenses, is whether each requires proof of a fact which the other does not.”
In order to convict under count two, it was necessary to prove that the petitioner endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the administration of justice in a United States Court by threats or force. In order to convict under count three, it was necessary to prove that petitioner and his codefendant agreed together to deter by force, intimidation, or threats, a witness from testifying freely, fully and truthfully in a certain case pending in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. In order to convict under count four, it was necessary to prove that petitioner and his codefendant agreed together to injure a witness on account of his having testified before the grand jury, concerning a matter pending in said court. Under the test above stated, it is plain that each count charged a separate offense.
It is also contended that petitioner is being unlawfully detained under the judgment and sentence imposed under the second count. He was sentenced to one year in jail and to pay a fine on that count, but the commitment erroneously recited that he had been sentenced to serve one year in the penitentiary on that count. It is not now necessary to determine the effect of the error in the commitment. The petitioner is now lawfully imprisoned under the sentence of six years on the fourth count. “Without restraint which is unlawful, the writ may not be used.” Newman v. Zerbst (C.C.A.10) 83 F.(2d) 973, 974.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
United States v. Van Vliet (D.C.Mich.) 23 F. 35; In re Brown, 139 Kan. 614, 32 P. (2d) 507, 511; Commonwealth v. Gray, 249 Ky. 36, 60 S.W.(2d) 133; State v. Miller, 331 Mo. 675, 56 S.W.(2d) 92; State v. Bell, 205 N.C. 225, 171 S.E. 50; Burnes v. State, 89 Fla. 494, 104 So. 783; State v. Gilmer, 292 Wis. 526, 232 N.W. 876; People v. Schepps, 231 Mich. 260, 293 N.W. 882; People v. Scofield (Cal.App.) 258 P. 656.
Rosser v. Commonwealth, 159 Va. 1028, 167 S.E. 257; People v. Garcia, 120 Cal.App. (Supp.) 767, 7 P.(2d) 401.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0