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:
Charles E. HOFMANN, Appellant, v. John J. SCHAEFER and Brewery Workers Local Union No. 1010, I. B. T., Appellees.
No. 80-1863.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 7, 1981.
Decided May 6, 1981.
Alfred E. Clasing, III, William J. Blondell, Jr., Baltimore, Md., for appellant.
Marvin Poe Sklar, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.
Before PHILLIPS and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and ANDERSON, District Judge.
Honorable G. Ross Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Hofmann brought suit under Title I of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 411-415. He alleged that the bylaws of his union local had been misinterpreted in order to deny him eligibility to challenge the incumbent president of the local, appellee Schaefer, in an upcoming union election. At a hearing on Hofmann’s motion for a temporary restraining order, the district court found that Hofmann’s claim was not one properly addressed under Title I and therefore dismissed his suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Under § 101(a)(1) of Title I of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(1), every union member must be afforded the equal right and privilege to nominate candidates and vote in union elections, and any member whose rights under section 101(a)(1) have been infringed may bring suit in a federal district court, § 102 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 412. Under § 401 of Title IV of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 481, every member of a union in good standing is made “eligible to be a candidate to hold office.” A complaint alleging a violation of section 401, however, is properly addressed to the Secretary of Labor for investigation and the possible institution of suit by the Secretary. § 402 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 482.
In Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 140, 85 S.Ct. 292, 296, 13 L.Ed.2d 190 (1964), the Supreme Court stated that “possible violations of Title IV of the Act regarding eligibility [to be a candidate for union office] are not relevant in determining whether or not a district court has jurisdiction under Sec. 102 of Title I of the Act.” Therefore, the Court held that suits “basically relating ... to eligibility of candidates for office ... fall squarely within Title IV of the Act and are to be resolved by the administrative and judicial procedure set out in that Title.” Id. at 141, 85 S.Ct. at 296.
Because Hofmann’s claim is one basically relating to his eligibility as a candidate for union office, it is, under the holding in Calhoon, a claim properly addressed to the Secretary under Title IV rather than the courts under Title I. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Hofmann’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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