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:
BALKWILL v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
Nos. 6767, 6672-75.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 7, 1935.
W. W. Spalding, of Washington, D. C., and W. H. Annat, of Cleveland, Ohio (Camden R. McAtee, of Washington, D. C., and William G. Gibbons, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for petitioner.
Helen R. Carloss, of Washington, D. C. (Frank J. Wideman, Sewall Key, and J, P.. Jackson, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.
ALLEN, Circuit Judge.
These are petitions to review orders of the Board of Tax Appeals sustaining determinations of the Commissioner hoM- ig the petitioner liable for deficiencies in income tax for the years 1922 to 1929, inclusive. The cases involve precisely the same legal question. The proceedings were consolidated before the Board, excepting No. 6767, which was heard after the decision in the other cases. 25 B. T. A. 1147.
The single question presented is whether the Commissioner properly taxed to the petitioner individually his distributive share of income from a partnership. The cases arise out of the following facts:
On December 29, 1919, the petitioner and George C. Lucas formed a partnership under the firm name of the Cleveland Frog & Crossing Company, in which the petitioner owned a forty-four per cent, interest. The partnership functioned during the entire period in controversy here.
A trust agreement was entered into between the petitioner and his brother and sisters on December 29, 1921, in which the parties conveyed to the petitioner as trustee .their respective interests in certain properties. As a part of the agreement, the petitioner declared that thereafter he would hold in trust for the equal benefit of the parties his interest in the Cleveland Frog & Crossing Company.
For each of the years from 1922 to 1929, inclusive, the Cleveland Frog & Crossing Company filed a return of income, apportioning its net income between Lucas and the petitioner as partners, according to their respective interests. For each of these years, the petitioner as trustee filed a fiduciary return of income, and also an individual return, reporting as income in his fiduciary returns the amount of his distributive share of profits from the partnership. The Commissioner eliminated these amounts from income reported as accruing to the trust, and added the adjusted amounts to the petitioner’s individual income.
The statutes involved are Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 245, 246, 250, §§ 218 (a), (c), 219 and 224, and corresponding provisions of the Revenue Acts of 1924, 1926 and 1928 (Revenue Acts 1924 and 1926, §§ 218, 219, 224, 26 USCA §§ 959-, 960 note, 965; Revenue Act 1928, §§ 161 et seq., 181 et seq., 26 USCA §§ 2161 et seq. 2181 et seq.).
The petitioner contends that the orders fail to give effect to section 219, which imposes the tax upon “the income of estates or of any kind of property held in trust,” urging that as his share of the income of the partnership is distributable under the trust agreement to the cestuis que trustent, it is taxable under that section only. This contention is untenable, for the reason that the partnership income was not received from property held in trust. The petitioner acknowledged that he would hold in trust his interest in the partnership and in the real and personal property owned by it, “subject, however, to all the terms and conditions of his partnership agreement” with Lucas. He did not transfer his interest in the partnership real estate by deed. The parties to the trust agreement contemplated that the assets should remain in the partnership, and that the rights of the beneficiaries under the trust were to be those of assignees, thus bringing the case squarely within the doctrine of Burnet, Commissioner, v. Leininger, 285 U. S. 136, 52 S. Ct. 345, 347, 76 L. Ed. 665, which held that “There was no transfer of the corpus of the partnership property to a new firm with a consequent readjustment of rights in that property and management.”
The petitioner, during the years in question, remained a member of the partnership. His declaration of trust did not divest him of his rights pertaining to such membership, including his proprietary right to share in the profits. The trust was not substituted as a member of the partnership, either by contract [Cf. Kasch v. Commissioner, 63 F.(2d) 466 (C. C. A. 5)], or by acquiescence with full knowledge of the facts, such as was shown in Rose v. Commissioner, 65 F.(2d) 616 (C. C. A. 6). Lucas had no knowledge of the existence of the trust. Income tax returns made by the firm revealed the petitioner and Lucas as partners. The assignment of the petitioner’s interest in the partnership was not mentioned on the firm books. No checks from the firm were drawn payable to the petitioner as trustee. An assignee of a partnership interest receives his income not from the firm, but from the assigning partner. Burnet, Commissioner, v. Leininger, supra; Luce v. Burnet, Commissioner, 60 App. D. C. 393, 55 F.(2d) 751; Battleson v. Commissioner, 62 F.(2d) 125 (C. C. A. 9); Mitchel v. Bowers, Collector, 15 F.(2d) 287 (C. C. A. 2); Lucas, Commissioner, v. Earl, 281 U. S. 111, 50 S. Ct. 241, 74 L. Ed. 731.
In one sense, the income paid the petitioner by the partnership did not inure to him personally. However, the person who receives income is not relieved from the tax because he chooses not to enjoy it; and this is not necessarily changed by the fact that he is deprived of the income by a legal obligation. Cf. Van Meter v. Commissioner, 61 F.(2d) 817, 819 (C. C. A. 8).
Section 218 (a) levies income tax upon individuals carrying on business in partnership, in accordance with their distributive shares of the net income of the partnership{ The petitioner, during all this period, carried on business in partnership. The Commissioner properly applied this section in the computation of the tax.
The adjustments made by the Commissioner in determining these deficiencies eliminate the question of double taxation.
The orders of the Board of Tax Appeals are 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