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:
Arminda H. HEDGER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ethel H. REYNOLDS, Defendant-Appellant, and The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Defendant.
No. 35, Docket 23007.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 13, 1954.
Decided Nov. 5, 1954.
Gray & Wythe, New York City, Horace M. Gray, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellee.
Henry J. Smith, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before CHASE, MEDINA and HARLAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Invoking the diversity jurisdiction of the court, the appellee brought this suit to set aside an instrument she had signed at the request of her deceased husband which had enabled him to have a policy of insurance on his life, in which she had previously been the sole beneficiary without right reserved to the insured to change the beneficiary, amended to give him that right. Before his death, he revoked the designation of his wife as beneficiary and had the appellant designated as such. When the insured died, the policy was payable to a third party to whom it had been assigned as security for money loaned to the insured. The insurance company paid the proceeds of the policy to the assignee who, after deducting the amount due him, paid the remainder to the appellant. Additional relief sought was to have appellant declared a constructive trustee, for the benefit of the appellee, of that part of the proceeds of the policy which the appellant had received. After trial by court, judgment was entered for the plaintiff-appellee setting aside the instrument the appellee had signed and impressing a trust for her benefit upon the proceeds of the policy which had been paid to her. This appeal is from that judgment. The insurance company was named as a defendant but did not appear and has no interest in the suit.
The appellant does not, nor well could she, contend that, on the facts as found, the judgment is erroneous since, at the least, they show that there was a breach of fiduciary relationship on the part of the appellee’s husband and that he was guilty of constructive fraud in persuading her to sign the instrument. Matter of Smith’s Estate, 243 App.Div. 348, 353, 276 N.Y.S. 646; Haack v. Weicken, 118 N.Y. 67, 73, 74, 23 N.E. 133.
The critical findings are that, “On or about the 23rd of March, 1948, the insured presented to the plaintiff, an instrument for her signature stating that the instrument when executed would obviate the need for signing others in the event of successive borrowings on the policy. Plaintiff, without time or opportunity to examine the instrument which insured forthwith took with him, but relying on the faith of her husband and on the practice of such earlier transactions, without any consideration, and in the absence of any witness, signed the instrument presented consenting to it only as an instrument designated to permit the obtaining of further loans on the policy. It was never acknowledged by her.”
Such evidence as there was to contradict these findings was by no means such that the judge was bound to accept it at face value. Certainly the certificate of the notary was only rebuttable evidence that the appellee’s acknowledgment had been taken as certified and that the instrument had been duly executed by her. Section 384(3) of the New York Civil Practice Act; Breuchaud v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 157 Misc. 375, 283 N.Y.S. 812. The burden on an appellant, who seeks to reverse a judgment for error in fact, to show that essential findings are clearly erroneous, is, indeed, a heavy one when, as in this instance, decision must turn largely upon the credibility of witnesses the trial judge saw and heard testify. Rule 52(a) F.R.C.P., 28 U.S.C.A. United States v. Aluminum of America, 2 Cir., 148 F.2d 416, 433; Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 2 Cir., 43 F.2d 685. The evidence of the appellee was not inherently improbable in the light of all the circumstances shown and we find nothing in this record which persuades us that the trial judge, who obviously did find it credible, committed any error in so doing. As it gave the findings substantial support they should be given effect by us. Straight Side Basket Corp. v. Webster Basket Co., Inc., 2 Cir., 82 F.2d 245, 247.
Judgment 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