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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph BARSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 26660.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 1, 1971.
Rehearing Denied April 16, 1971.
Daniel S. Pearson, Robert C. Josefs-berg, Pearson & Josefsberg, P. A., Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., by Lloyd G. Bates, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BELL and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Honorable Orie L. Phillips of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
In an opinion dated November 6, 1970, United States v. Barson, 5 Cir. 1970, 434 F.2d 127, we remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose of conducting an adversary hearing to determine whether or not the appellant was prejudiced by the refusal of the district court to order production of the grand jury testimony of two government witnesses, Norman Rachlin and Laurant Wheldon, for purposes of cross-examination at trial. In accordance with that mandate, the district court ordered production of the grand jury testimony of the witnesses, and, after notice, conducted such an adversary hearing on January 6, 1971. In an order dated January 22, 1971, the district court concluded that no prejudice had resulted to the appellant from the failure at trial to order production of the testimony for inspection and possible use by appellant.
The district court has certified to us a copy of the transcript of the hearing, together with a copy of that court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We append the findings and conclusions to this order as Appendix A.
We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the hearing before the district court, and are convinced that the record amply supports the district court’s findings and conclusions that no prejudice resulted to the appellant. The conviction of Joseph Barson is accordingly
Affirmed.
APPENDIX A
(Title and Heading omitted)
Pursuant to the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, this Court has conducted an evi-dentiary hearing, after notice to the parties, to determine whether prejudice resulted to appellant Joseph Barson from lack of opportunity to use at trial the grand jury minutes of Government witnesses, Norman Rachlin and Laurent Wheldon. Pursuant also to said mandate, this Court entered an Order, dated November 9, 1970, requiring the United States Attorney to deliver to appellant Joseph Barson and his attorney copies of the grand jury testimony of the witnesses Rachlin and Wheldon, and thereafter requiring appellant to file a statement specifying instances of prejudice resulting from lack of opportunity to use said grand jury testimony, and also requiring the United States Attorney to file a reply to appellant’s statement, and pursuant to said order, the parties have filed their respective statements. Attached to the Government’s reply statement were two reports of interview of Rachlin by FBI Agent Wheldon, dated January 12, 1966, and February 7, 1968, respectively, which the Government contends were delivered to defense counsel during the trial as part of the Jencks materials. Appellant admits to having received at trial the report dated January 12, 1966, but denies having received the other. It appears from the statements filed herein that the Government, pursuant to the Order of this court, dated November 9, 1970, turned over to appellant’s counsel the grand jury testimony of Rachlin and Wheldon, dated December 1, 1966, and September 13, 1967, which said testimony had been transcribed prior to trial. Pursuant also to said Order, the Government turned over to appellant’s counsel grand jury testimony of Wheldon, dated November 9, 1966, which said testimony had not been previously transcribed.
The Court, having now conducted an evidentiary hearing at which appellant was present in person and by counsel, having considered .the testimony and argument offered at said hearing, having considered the trial testimony of the witnesses Rachlin and Wheldon as well as having examined the transcripts of said witnesses’ grand jury testimony, having considered the statements and responses filed herein by the parties, as well as the aforesaid interview reports of Rachlin and Wheldon, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, now finds and concludes:
1. No inconsistency appears between the testimony of the witnesses Rachlin and Wheldon given at trial and the testimony which they gave before the grand jury with respect to any material matter in the instant cause.
2. Said finding applies equally to the grand jury testimony of Wheldon, dated November 9, 1966, even assuming the government had any obligation to transcribe and turn over said testimony.
3. Even accepting appellant’s contention that he did not receive at trial the Rachlin interview report, dated February 7, 1968, he was not thereby prejudiced, for the material covered therein was substantially covered in the Rachlin interview report, dated January 12, 1966, and moreover did not relate to the subject matter of Rachlin’s trial testimony. See Title 18, United States Code, Section 3500.
4. The Rachlin interview report, dated January 12, 1966, copy of which appellant agrees he had at trial, covered substantially the subject matter of Rach-lin’s trial testimony.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that by virtue of the foregoing no prejudice resulted to Joseph Barson from the lack of opportunity to use at trial the transcripts of the grand jury testimony of Rachlin or Wheldon.
Wherefore, the Court orders that the foregoing findings and conclusions together with transcript of the evidentiary hearing, together with the statements and responses made by the parties pursuant to Order of this Court, be transmitted forthwith to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit together with the certificate of this Court.
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of January, 1971.
W. MEHRTENS
United States District Judge

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