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:
TOWNE v. HUDSPETH, Warden.
No. 1957.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 28, 1939.
E. N. Freeman, of Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., and Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.
This is an application by Orin Towne for the review of an order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
He was charged in an indictment duly returned on September 29, 1923, in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, containing two counts in substance charging violations of the postal laws of the United States as follows:
(1) That said Orin Towne while in the postal service of the United States as a substitute post office clerk stole a registered first class parcel addressed to the Bank of Courtland, California. ' (2) That he unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously rifled and stole the contents of such parcel.
Whilst said case was pending against him, on October 6, 1923 he addressed a letter to the court requesting that it be transferred from the Northern Division at Sacramento, California to San Francisco, California, that it might be disposed of more promptly.
On October 15, 1923, said Orin Towne entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years. On the same day a commitment was issued and on October 26, 1923, he was delivered to the United States Penitentiary at McNeil Island.
On July 28, 1925 he was released on a conditional parole. On June 9, 1927 he was declared to be a parole violator, and recommitted on January 10, 1931 to serve the remainder of his sentence. On November 25, 1931 he was given a conditional commutation of sentence. On December 2, 1931 he accepted said conditional commutation of sentence in writing and was released. On November 8, 1933 he was committed to the Iowa State Penitentiary for the crime of breaking into and entering a dwelling house in the daytime. On August 2, 1938 his conditional commutation of sentence was revoked. Upon completion of his sentence in the Iowa State Penitentiary, he was taken into custody and delivered to the Attorney General of the United States to complete the original term of imprisonment, which will expire December 13, 1940.
The contention of said Towne is that when he entered his plea of' guilty on September 29, 1923, he was denied the right to the assistance of counsel. No exhibits were attached to his petition for such writ;
The United States in its response avers that Towne was sufficiently advised of his right to the assistance of counsel, and voluntarily, intelligently, and - in a competent manner waived same. Attached to such answer as exhibits were affidavits of Fred McDonald, former Assistant United States Attorney and of George Austin, United States post office inspector, and of a copy of the proceedings in the United States Court for the Northern District of California, and of the conditional commutation of sentence, and of the revocation of such commutation.
A copy of the judgment on the plea of guilty discloses that Towne came into court without counsel; that he was informed by the court of the nature of the indictment filed against him, and after arraignment entered a plea of guilty; that he was asked if he had any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him on said plea, and no sufficient cause being shown or appearing to the court, he was thereupon sentenced.
Fred McDonald (Assistant United States Attorney) in his affidavit stated that at the time of the arraignment, plea and sentence of Towne, as such official he was acting under assignment to the court room of Honorable John S. Partridge, then a presiding judge but now deceased, and was in court on October 15, 1923 when Towne was arraigned, pleaded guilty and sentenced; that he had no personal recollection of the case, but that it was the practice of said Judge Partridge to always inquire of each defendant who was not represented by counsel whether he had funds or means with which to procure counsel, and if the defendant responded in the negative, to inform such defendant that he was entitled to be represented by counsel and the court would appoint an attorney for him if he so desired; that Judge Partridge always made full inquiry as to the facts of each case and before acceptance of a plea of guilty of a defendant not represented by counsel advised him of the effect of his plea and the sentence that might be incurred thereby.
George Austin, United States post office inspector, in his affidavit stated that he was such inspector on August 23,. 1923, at which time he caused the arrest of Towne at Council Bluffs, Iowa, and his removal to Sacramento, California, where he was indicted for violation of Section 195 of the Criminal Code of the United States, 18 U. S.C.A. § 318; that while Towne was confined in the county jail at Sacramento he asked deponent if steps could not be taken for prompt disposition of his case, and requested that the hearing be transferred to San Francisco; that he had no specific recollection of the proceedings before Judge Partridge on October 15, 1923, but Judge Partridge as a rule before accepting a plea or sentencing a defendant not represented by counsel always made full inquiry of the defendent to ascertain whether he desired the court to appoint' counsel for him, and ascertain from such defendant as to whether he knew the nature of the charge and the effect of the plea of guilty.
The trial court found that Towne was not denied the right to the. assistance of counsel at the time he entered his plea of guilty, and that the application for the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be denied.
One accused of crime may waive his right to the assistance of counsel and such waiver of right will ordinarily be implied where the accused appears without counsel and fails to request the assignment of counsel to him. Buckner v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 105 F.2d 396, certiorari denied 60 S.Ct. 99, 84 L.Ed.-.
The burden of proof rested upon Towne to show that he was denied the right to assistance of counsel. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461.
The record discloses that at the time Town^ entered his- plea of guilty he was duly informed of the nature of the charge against him, and asked by the court if he had any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced. There is nothing in the record to disclose that he did not intelligently and understandingly waive the right to counsel. The court made such finding which was supported by substantial evidence.
The judgment of the trial court is 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