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:
Harold Wayne DAVIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 13706.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
June 17, 1959.
Certiorari Denied Oct. 12, 1959.
See 80 S.Ct. 113.
Stanley Goodman, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
J. Leonard Walker, and Robert D. Simmons, Louisville, Ky., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Judge, McAL-LISTER, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed his motion, under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to vacate the sentence imposed on him by the District Court on the ground that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense of kidnaping for which he was tried, and that he was also insane at the time of his trial. Appellant had never been adjudicated insane prior to the imposition of the sentence. The issue of insanity was raised for the first time upon the motion to vacate, in the District Court. See Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835. The District Court held that the procedure that should be followed in this case was that provided in Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245. The court stated that appellant should apply to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for a determination by the board of examiners of the issue of his mental competency at the time of his trial; that if there were probable cause to believe that appellant was mentally incompetent, the board of examiners would so report, and the court would hold a hearing; and that if the appellant was found to be mentally incompetent, the judgment of conviction would be vacated and a new trial granted.
The court, therefore, denied appellant's motion filed under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, without prejudice to appellant to renew his motion thereunder, if the procedure under Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245, failed to provide an adequate remedy for ascertaining the mental condition of appellant at the time of his trial. After denial of the motion, appellant was examined by the Psychiatric Board at the hospital of the United States Penitentiary at Alcatraz, California, which reported that it was of the opinion that while appellant had a sociapathic personality, there was no evidence of psychosis, and that, in the opinion of the Board, he was mentally competent at the time of his trial and sentence.
Under the circumstances of this case, the order of the District Court is affirmed, without prejudice, however, to the right of appellant to renew his motion, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. United States v. Meadows, D.C., 140 F.Supp. 184, affirmed 6 Cir., 232 F.2d 312; Broadus v. Lowry, 6 Cir., 245 F.2d 304, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 858, 78 S.Ct. 88, 2 L.Ed.2d 65. See also Gregori v. United States, 5 Cir., 243 F.2d 48.
. “Whenever the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall certify that a person convicted of an offense against the United States has been examined by the board of examiners referred to in Title 18, United States Code, section 4241, and that there is probable cause to believe that such person was mentally incompetent at the time of Ms trial, provided the issue of mental competency was not raised and determined before or during said trial, the Attorney General .shall transmit the report of the board of examiners and the certificate of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to the clerk of the district court wherein the conviction was had. Whereupon the court shall hold a hearing to determine the mental competency of the accused in accordance with the provisions of section 4244 above, and with all the powers therein granted. In such hearing the certificate of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall be pri-ma facie evidence of the facts' and conclusions certified therein. If the court shall find that the accused was mentally incompetent at the time o'f his trial, the court shall vacate the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial.”

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