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 "fiduciaries". 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:
CONNELLY et al. v. ANDERSON et al.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
July 6, 1928.
No. 4826.
Patents <§=328 — No. 1,522,577, for method of tunnel excavation, held invalid for want of patentable novelty.
Connelly Patent, No. 1,522,577, for a method of tunnel excavation, held invalid for want of patentable novelty.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio; D. C. Westenhaver, Judge.
Suit by Albert L. Connelly and others against L. W. Anderson and others. Prom a decree of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Jos. B. Keenan and James A. Butler, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants.
Paust P. Crampton, of Toledo, Ohio, for appellees.
Before DENISON, MOORMAN, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The District Court dismissed plaintiffs’ bill for infringement, based upon patent No. 1,522,577, January 13,1925, issued to plaintiffs for a method of excavating. The patent was held to be invalid, even, if infringed. We have given thorough consideration to the criticisms made of the opinion below, and we think it must be affirmed.
Well before Connelly’s appearance, Greenwood had applied to tunnel excavation a method which was essentially that of a power scraper in surface work. Greenwood provided a slicing or scraping knife, attached to a cable which extended to a power drum, and when the knife was placed in position and the drum operated, pulling in the cable, a slice of the earth was cut loose, ready for easy removal. This was, of course, adapted to certain soils, and not to others. Greenwood had applied it upon the advancing face of a large tunnel, drawing his knife radially from the edge of the tunnel to the center. In driving tunnels, particularly of the smaller sizes, as for sewers, it was customary to sink a shaft to the desired depth, and then drive the tunnel horizontally therefrom, using picks and shovels when appropriate. Connelly’s method of treatment was specifically new, and he contemplated working in heavy clay or self-sustaining soils. If he wished, for example, to drive a tunnel 8 feet in diameter, he drove first, with pick and shovel, a tunnel as small as a man could work in, perhaps 3 feet in diameter, and extending as far as practicable, perhaps 15 or 20 feet. This being done, the workman carried in a scraper or slicing knife of the Greenwood type, and it was drawn back horizontally by a power drum. In this way the tunnel was gradually enlarged to the desired size and shape. In the particular soil to which the method was adaptable, there was no doubt a substantial economy of time and labor, as compared with the former methods.
Though we observe former methods of tunnel building, which included driving a small preliminary tunnel of a size that would permit timbering and easy working, and then enlarging it from the side to make a complete tunnel, and even if we disregard defendant’s testimony of rather specific anticipation, we might assume that Connelly had developed a novelty in method which might have been restricted to his real novelty, and so have permitted some patent protection. He experienced difficulty in the Patent Office in formulating any description of this novelty by way of a claim. The novelty consisted of the particular narrow and long tunnel, which in the proofs is now called a monkey hole, in connection with the use therein of the Greenwood scraper axially of the preliminary tunnel, instead of radially of the full tunnel, as Greenwood had used it. The claim as issued is quoted in the margin. *3 It calls for a limitation in the size and shape of the monkey hole, which limitation is not described or suggested in the specification, and which quite obviously cannot give patentability; it does not specify that the monkey hole be extended horizontally any substantial distance, even beyond the reach of workmen remaining in the vertical shaft, and it calls for any method of removing the earth in strips from the side walls and floor of the monkey hole, instead of being limited to the peculiar method of removing strips by a power scraper or slieer, in which alone lay whatever utility Connelly’s method had. We are quite clear that the claim does not describe any patentable novelty in method.
The decree is affirmed.
“A method of digging a cylindrical tunnel or similar subway, consisting of, first, digging a vertical hole in the ground to a desired depth; second, digging a narrow lateral passageway in the direction in which the tunnel is to extend with the height of the passage corresponding to a radius of' the tunnel when complete; third, removing strips of earth from the side walls of the passageway to form an upper semieylindrical passageway; and, fourth, removing strips of earth from the floor of the semicylindrical passageway to convert said passageway into a cylindrical passageway.”

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 99