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:
Jerome S. MURRAY, Appellant, v. Irving S. LICHTMAN, Appellee.
No. 18409.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Oct. 1, 1964.
Decided Nov. 19, 1964.
Mr. Joseph A. McMenamin, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. David G. Bress, Washingtoix, D. C., with whom Messx-s. Lucien Hilmer and J. H. Krug, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Bastían, Wright and McGowan, Cix’cuit Judges.
J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
In September, 1957, defendant-appel-lee Lichtman became intex-ested in purchasing the Kedrick Building, then owned by Parkwood, Inc. After sevex-al discussions, plaintiff-appellant Murray agreed to use his influence with the president of Parkwood to arrange for a sale on terms agreeable to Lichtman. Mux--X'ay alleges that, in return for his services in bringing about the sale, Lichtman orally promised to indemnify him should he be held liable in any way to Weinberg & Bush, Inc., a real estate firm which had been involved in earlier negotiations concerning the Kedrick Building.
The sale from Parkwood to Lichtman took place on September 27, 1957. On October 5, 1957, Lichtman sent Murray a letter in which he agreed to “save you [Mux-ray] haxmless from any claim for commission which may be maintained against you growing out of my recent purchase of the Kedrick Building.” The letter then set forth the situation, as understood by Lichtman, and provided “that my indemnity aforesaid is not operative in the event that facts should be proven in the event of a suit involving a claim for commission which materially changes, in legal effect, the situation as is presented.” One of the material facts, stated in the letter, which conditioned Lichtman’s obligation was that Murray-had never authorized the Weinberg & Bush firm to attempt to find a purchaser for the Kedrick Building. Upon receipt of the letter, Murray signified his approval of it by signing at the bottom.
In October, 1960, Weinberg & Bush recovered $20,000 in an action for breach of warranty of authority against Murray. In that action, it was established that Murray had authorized Weinberg & Bush to find a purchaser for the Kedrick Building without authority from Park-wood, and thus became personally liable to Weinberg & Bush for their commission on the sale.
Murray now demands indemnity for this liability to Weinberg & Bush. Lichtman, in answer to Murray’s demand, denies that any oral promise of indemnity was made and further contends that, even if such a promise were made, it was integrated in the later written agreement which by its terms became inoperative when it was subsequently established in a legal action that Murray had employed Weinberg & Bush to find a purchaser for the Kedrick Building. When the case came on for trial, Lichtman’s motion to dismiss, made at the end of Murray’s opening statement, was granted by the trial court.
The record, including the pleadings, affidavits filed by both parties, the Pre-trial Examiner’s Statement, and Murray’s opening remarks, clearly reflects a genuine issue over whether an oral promise of indemnity was made before the sale took place. Lichtman’s contention, which was apparently accepted by the trial court, is that this issue is immaterial since, even if the promise had been made, it was, by virtue of the parol evidence rule, integrated in the later written agreement. We do not agree.
The parol evidence rule requires that “[w]hen two parties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the complete and accurate integration of that contract, evidence, whether parol or otherwise, of antecedent understandings and negotiations will not be admitted for the purpose of varying or contradicting the writing.” But the rule does not exclude evidence to show that the writing was not intended to be a complete and accurate integration or to show that the written agreement is void for lack of consideration.
If we assume Murray’s allegations to be true, as we must, it appears that the parties entered into a valid contract before the date of the sale. At that time, Lichtman allegedly gave Murray his broad oral indemnity in return for Murray’s services. After the sale, when the parties approved Lichtman’s letter, Murray’s services had already been performed and Lichtman was bound by his earlier oral promise. The letter agreement, which substantially conditioned the indemnity, was therefore without consideration and cannot, of itself, create any contractual rights and duties.
Nor can the letter stand as a writing to which the parties have both assented as the complete integration of their contract. The assent to an integration is itself a contractual act and must, therefore, be supported by consideration. When one of the parties to a contract has completely performed his part of the bargain, his later assent to a writing incorporating the terms of the bargain is without consideration. If, in such a case, the terms of the writing vary from the terms of the prior agreement, the prior agreement must be considered to determine the rights and duties of the parties.
The evidence may show that in signing the letter the parties then agreed that it expressed the existing contractual situation. If so, the letter may amount to an admission on Murray’s part as to the terms of the oral indemnity contract. But the terms would not be conclusively established by such an admission. Opposing this possible admission are Murray’s sworn assertions to the contrary. Thus a genuine issue of fact exists which only a trial on the merits can resolve.
Reversed and remanded.
. In Lampka v. Wilson Line of Washington, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 55, 55-56, 325 F. 2d 628, 628-629 (196.3), this court expressed disapproval of the method of summary disposition employed in the present case. The opinion noted that:
“* * * Dismissal after the opening statement is not specifically authorized in the Rules but is a vestige of practice before the Rules were adopted.
“Since the opening statement may be waived entirely, grave doubt arises whether, if a complaint states a cause of action, an opening statement can so dilute the formal pleading as to afford a basis for summary disposition, * * *»
These remarks are made particularly apposite to the present case by the fact that, before the case came on for trial, a motion for summary judgment in favor of Lichtman had been denied.
. 3 Corbin, Contracts § 573 (1960). See also Welch v. Sherwin, 112 U.S.App. D.C. 124, 300 F.2d 716 (1962); 4 Wil-liston, Contracts § 631 (3d ed. 1961).
. Brewood v. Cook, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 386, 207 F.2d 439 (1953). See also Metals Development Company v. United States, 5 Cir., 322 F.2d 210 (1963); Richfield Oil Corporation v. United States, 9 Cir., 248 F.2d 217 (1957).
. See generally, 4 Williston, Contracts § 634 (3d ed. 1961).
. It is, of course, well settled that past consideration is no consideration. Glas-cock v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 4 Cir., 104 F.2d 475 (1939); 1 Williston, Contracts § 142 (3d ed. 1957).
Furthermore, assuming the terms of the prior oral contract were as Murray has alleged, Liehtman’s promise in the letter was a promise to perform a preexisting obligation. Such a promise is not sufficient consideration for Murray’s agreement to alter the obligation. See 1 Williston, Contracts § 130 (3d ed. 1957).
The record contains no allegations that the letter agreement was a compromise settlement of a bona fide dispute as to the terms of the oral agreement. If evidence to this effect is developed on trial, other principles would apply. Id. at p. 536.
. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Honolulu Oil Corp., 5 Cir., 241 F.2d 920 (1957), affirming N.D.Tex., 141 F.Supp. 322 (1956); Cotulla v. Barlow, Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W. 294 (1908). Restatement, Contracts § 237 (1932):
“ * * * [T]he integration of an agreement makes inoperative to add to or vary the agreement all contemporaneous oral agreements relating to the same subject-matter; and also, unless the integration is void, or voidable and avoided, all prior oral or written agreements relating thereto. If either void or voidable and avoided, the integration leaves the operation of prior agreements unaffected.”
Comment b under § 237 states:
“ * * * Prior agreements, however, whether written or oral, which were operative before the integration do not have their effect destroyed by an integrated agreement which is either void or is voidable and avoided.”
And see Illustration 1 under the same section.

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