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:
Robert V. MEDINA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 15507.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
April 2, 1958.
Rehearing Denied May 22, 1958.
Morris Lavine, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Norman W. Neukom, Lloyd F. Dunn, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for ap-pellee.
Before FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges, and CHASE A. CLARK, District Judge.
CHASE A. CLARK, District Judge.
Robert V. Medina and Lawrence Melvin Miles were tried on a charge of murder. Miles was convicted of second degree murder and Medina was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Miles did not appeal. Medina appeals and assigns as errors:
“I. The evidence is insufficient to support the verdict as to Medina. It is contrary to the law and as to the evidence. The Court should have granted the motion for judgment of acquittal as to Medina and this Court should direct the entry of the judgment of acquittal as to Medina.
“II. The Court erred in the admission and exclusion of evidence:
“(a) The Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to cross examine the defendant regarding details of his prior conviction of felony.
“(b) The Court erred in permitting cross examination of Medina beyond the scope of the direct examination and then permitting purported rebuttal of such facts brought out on cross examination.
“(c) The Court erred in permitting agent Walker to testify regarding the purported statement obtained from Medina and which was the result of prolonged questioning while in special custody and prior to any accusation and arraignment.
“HI. The Court erred in giving the so-called Allen instruction after the jury had deliberated for more than a day. This was highly prejudicial for the Court erred in not granting a motion for a new trial on the basis of the juror’s affidavit as to reaching a verdict following the Court’s giving of the instruction to the jury after it had deliberated for more than a day.”
The homicide was the outgrowth of an argument or quarrel in the Federal Correctional Institution at Terminal Island, California.
Medina, Appellant here, Miles and one Sumpter were inmates in the above mentioned institution.
Sumpter was killed, having been stabbed by Miles. There is also evidence that Sumpter was struck on the head by some instrument, according to the evidence it was a hammer. Several of the witnesses were inmates of the institution and there is considerable conflict in the evidence given by these witnesses as to the details of what occurred at the time of the argument and the incident which resulted in the death. However, there is some evidence that about this time Medina had in his hand a ball peen hammer; also that he was heard to say “now is the time to get him”. According to some of the evidence this remark was addressed to Miles.
Witness Ridge, Coroner’s Physician testified that the cause of death was a stab wound.
The record of the trial consists of ten volumes (over a thousand pages) and we think nothing would be gained by a lengthy statement of facts. As would be expected under the circumstances there were conflicts and contradictions as to the part taken in the altercation, by the appellant Medina.
It is apparent from the record that the case was tried upon the theory that Miles and Medina were joint participants in the acts which led to the death of Sumpter.
The Court instructed fully on the elements necessary to be established in order to warrant a conviction of murder or the included offenses.
The Jury heard and saw the witnesses and the verdict reflects their finding. We are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
While it might be said that the procedure followed during the trial was not the customary practice in examining a witness as to prior convictions, we find ample authority for such examination. Arnette v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 11; Newman v. United States, 5 Cir., 220 F.2d 289. There was no error in permitting such examination.
We are also of the opinion that there is no merit in appellant’s contention that the Court erred in allowing the Government to reopen its case and permitting FBI agent Walker to testify as to a statement given by Medina. The record discloses Medina admitted being interviewed by the Agent but denied making any statement. The Court properly allowed the case to be reopened for further evidence. This Court so held in Kuhn v. United States, 24 F.2d 910; Lutch v. United States, 73 F.2d 840; Haugen v. United States, 153 F.2d 850. It was proper to allow the Government to show that appellant made statements at another time contrary to statements made on the witness stand.
The lower Court properly admitted the testimony of the FBI Agent as to the statement given by Medina at a time he was being held as the evidence here shows that appellant was being lawfully held in the Institution at Terminal Island at the time the statement was taken from Medina. United States v. Carignan, 342 U.S. 36, 72 S.Ct. 97, 96 L.Ed. 48. This is not in conflict with the ruling in McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819.
As to the assignment of error numbered III. We need only say that this Court has considered the giving of the so-called “Allen” instruction in a number of cases, the most recent or one of the most recent being Hutson v. United States, 9 Cir., 238 F.2d 167. It is contended by appellant that the motion for new trial should have been granted on the basis of an affidavit of Juror Caroline A. Resch, to the effect that the last instruction (being the one mentioned above) caused her to join in returning a verdict of guilty when she did not believe Medina was guilty. This question has been before the Courts on many occasions. It is well settled that matters affecting the personal feelings or views of a juror, such as set forth in the Resch affidavit should not be received to set aside or overthrow the verdict. As stated in appellee’s brief, there is considerable authority that generally jurors should not be questioned after their verdict, and that such questioning is disapproved.
The judgment is affirmed.

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