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:
W. D. NOLEN, Appellant, v. Lawrence E. WILSON, Appellee.
No. 20984.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 1, 1967.
W. D. Nolen, in pro. per.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., of Cal., John T. Murphy, Frank C. Damrell, Jr., Albert W. Harris, Jr., Robert R. Gran-nucci, Jennifer F. Bain, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLIN, JERTBERG and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.
HAMLIN, Circuit Judge.
In 1963, W. D. Nolen, appellant herein, was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California, of first degree robbery, a violation of California Penal Code § 211. He is now serving his sentence in the California State Prison at San Quentin. His conviction was affirmed on appeal by the California District Court of Appeal in an unpublished opinion, People v. Nolen, 1 Crim. 4385, June 16, 1964. During his arraignment, plea, trial and appeal, he was represented by counsel.
On March 25, 1966, appellant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, raising substantially the same legal issues presented to the California court on direct appeal. The application was denied by the district court and thereafter a certificate of probable cause and permission to appeal in forma pauperis was granted.
Appellant raises seven issues on appeal. He contends that during his trial (1) there was deliberate misconduct by the district attorney; (2) the court erred in denying his motion to exclude certain evidence; (3) the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial and to admonish the jury concerning the handling of an exhibit; (4) he was improperly cross-examined; (5) certain comments of the trial judge concerning the effect of an admission by a co-defendant was error; (6) the testimony of an accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated; and (7) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. All of these contentions were determined adversely to appellant in a carefully written opinion of the District Court of Appeal, supra.
Appellant contends that each of the claimed errors at the trial was a violation of his constitutional right to due process of law. We do not agree.
Denial of due process within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States in the trial of a criminal case in a state court sufficient to justify federal court interference is “the failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice.” Lisenba v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 219, 236, 62 S.Ct. 280, 290, 86 L.Ed. 166. Hendrix v. Hand, 312 F.2d 147 (10th Cir. 1962); Chavez v. Dickson, 280 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1960). “[I]n the ordinary case of this kind a United States Court will refuse to grant habeas corpus if it is satisfied from the record as a whole that the state courts gave fair consideration to the issues, reached a satisfactory result, and protected the rights of the petitioner under the Constitution of the United States.” Hendrix v. Hand, supra, 312 F.2d at 149.
Respecting appellant’s first contention, the record shows that the prosecutor asked appellant on cross-examination about a gun in the glove compartment of a car driven by appellant after the robbery in question. The gun was not the one used in the robbery. No adequate objection was made concerning this examination and the motion of appellant’s counsel to strike .certain of the testimony was granted. Thereafter, appellant without objection volunteered that he had placed a gun in a purse in the automobile. The District Court of Appeal stated that the prosecutor’s cross-examination was improper. However, “the fact that a trial court error is prejudicial to defendant [does not] necessarily transform an otherwise fair trial into one which offends Fifth Amendment due process. It does not do so unless it has the effect of converting what was otherwise a fair trial into one which is repugnant to an enlightened system of justice.” Vandergrift v. United States, 313 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1963). In view of the circumstances concerning this testimony we hold that there was neither prejudicial error nor fundamental unfairness to appellant.
The other contentions of appellant have been carefully examined and are without merit. The evidence alleged to be erroneously admitted in point two was a gun identified by a witness as having been used in the robbery. It was properly admitted.
This gun was unloaded at the bailiff’s desk in court during the trial. Some days later during the trial appellant claimed that the unloading of the gun was prejudicial and moved to admonish the jury to disregard it. After a conference in chambers the court refused to give such admonition unless there was evidence introduced as to whether or not the gun was loaded when it came into possession of the authorities. Appellant and his counsel refused to consent to the introduction of such evidence, and the court refused to give the admonition. We see no error in this procedure.
Appellant’s contention number four is essentially the same as his contention number one. The basis of appellant’s contention number five is that while a witness for the prosecution was being examined as to statements made by a co-defendant the testimony of the witness established that in these statements the co-defendant implicated the appellant. At the suggestion of appellant’s counsel the court instructed the jury that the statements were offered only against the co-defendant and were not to be considered as any evidence against appellant. The District Court of Appeal held that the trial court had properly advised the jury of the limitation of the testimony. We agree.
In contention number six appellant states that the testimony of an accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated as required by the California Penal Code. The record shows that there was ample corroboration of this accomplice. There was no denial of due process. Cf. Lisenba v. People of State of California, supra. It also may be pointed out that under the federal rule the testimony of an accomplice need not be corroborated.
Appellant’s last contention equally has no merit. Witnesses positively identified him as having been the holdup man at the time of the robbery. Due process is denied only when there is a complete lack of evidence, Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654. Obviously, there was sufficient evidence in this case to satisfy the due process standard.
A consideration of the entire case indicates there was no lack of due process during appellant’s trial and that there was no failure to observe fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice. Lisenba v. People of State of California, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
. No objection or request for admonition was made at this time.

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