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 T. BRIM a/k/a Robert T. Mertz, Appellant, v. Herman SOLEM, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary and Mark V. Meierhenry, Attorney General, State of South Dakota, Appellees.
No. 82-1633.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 1982.
Decided Nov. 12, 1982.
Certiorari Denied April 4, 1983.
See 103 S.Ct. 1530.
Darla Pollman Rogers, Meyer Law Office, Onida, S.D., for appellant.
Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Douglas Kludt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, S.D., for appellee.
Before BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Robert Brim was convicted in 1958 in South Dakota state court of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1979, he sought post-conviction relief in state court, alleging that neither his attorney nor the court advised him of his right to appeal. After an evidentiary hearing, the state court denied relief, finding that Brim had been advised of his right to appeal. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. Brim then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court denied the petition on two grounds. First, the court found the petition barred under the doctrine of laches as embodied in Rule 9(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under this Rule, the state must show prejudice resulting from unreasonable delay. Cotton v. Mabry, 674 F.2d 701, 704-05 (8th Cir.1982). South Dakota showed that the trial judge had died and that large portions of the trial transcript had been destroyed by water damage while in storage. Brim delayed 21 years in challenging his conviction, even though he had been in contact with several attorneys during the course of his incarceration. We agree with the district court that under these circumstances Rule 9(a) dismissal was proper.
As an alternate basis for its decision, the court, after conducting an independent review of the record, concluded that there was substantial evidence that Brim was advised of his right to appeal. Brim’s trial attorney stated by affidavit that while he did not remember specifically advising Brim of his appeal right, he always advised his clients of that right and that the trial judge at Brim’s trial also was in the habit of advising defendants of the right to appeal. We agree with the district court that this was sufficient to prove that Brim had been advised of his right to appeal. See Bouchillon v. Estelle, 628 F.2d 926, 929 (5th Cir.1980).
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. 8th Cir.R. 12(a).
. The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
. Rule 9(a) provides:
A petition may be dismissed if it appears that the state of which the respondent is an officer has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the petition by delay in its filing unless the petitioner shows that it is based on grounds of which he could not have had knowledge by the exercise of due diligence before the circumstances prejudicial to the state occurred.
Rules following 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

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