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:
GREEN v. SCHILDER, Warden.
No. 3499.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 16, 1947.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 15, 1947.
Ram Morrison, of Oklahoma City, Old., for appellant.
Haskell B. Pugh, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Auadarko, Old. (Robert E. Shelton, U. S. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Old., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and MU.RRAH, Circuit Judges.
BRATTON, Circuit Judge.
This is a proceeding in habeas corpus. The facts are not in controversy. Garnet W. Green, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, was tried by a general court-martial and found guilty of violating the 61st, 93rd, and 96th articles of war, 10 U.S.C.A. §§ 1S33, 1565, 1568. The sentence fixed was ten years at hard labor at such place as the reviewing authority might direct, and dishonorable discharge from the army. The reviewing authority approved the sentence of ten years, fixed the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, as the place of confinement, and ordered suspended the provision for the dishonorable discharge until after the release of petitioner from confinement. The sentence became final; and on April 17, 1944, petitioner was committed to the Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. On October 22, 1946, the Secretary of War executed the dishonorable discharge. Negotiations between the Secretary of War and the Attorney General of the United States resulted in an agreement that certain military prisoners might be transferred to federal reformatories and correctional institutions for the service of their sentences. Pursuant to that agreement, petitioner was on October 29, 1946, transferred to the federal reformatory at El Reno, Oklahoma; and he is confined there for service of the sentence. Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus for his release from further confinement in the reformatory. Treating the application as insufficient in law, the writ was denied; and the proceeding is here to review that action.
The first contention urged by petitioner is that his confinement in the reformatory contravenes the 42nd article of war, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1513. In presently material part, the article provides that “persons sentenced to dishonorable discharge and to confinement not in a penitentiary shall be confined in the United States Disciplinary Barracks or elsewhere as the Secretary of War or the reviewing authority may direct, but not in a penitentiary.” The section concerns itself with persons sentenced to dishonorable discharge and to confinement not in a penitentiary. It commands that they shall be confined in disciplinary barracks of the United States or elsewhere as the Secretary of War or other reviewing authority may direct. And it forbids their confinement in a penitentiary. But that is the extent of the inhibition. It goes no further. And the Secretary of War or other reviewing authority is free under the article to fix other institutions as the place of confinement.
There is a well-understood distinction between an ordinary penitentiary for the imprisonment of persons convicted of serious crimes and a reformatory or other like correctional institution for the detention of offenders of immature age or others convicted of less serious crimes. And that distinction has received judicial recognition. Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 633, 29 P. 251; Ex parte Nichols, 110 Cal. 651, 43 P. 9; People v. Superintendent Illinois State Reformatory, 148 Ill. 413, 36 N.E. 76, 23 L.R.A. 139; Henderson v. People, 165 Ill. 607, 46 N.E. 711; People v. Mallary, 195 Ill. 582, 63 N.E. 508, 88 Am.St.Rep. 212; People v. Smith, 253 Ill. 283, 97 N.E. 649; People v. Callicott, 322 Ill. 390, 153 N.E. 688; People v. Queen, 326 Ill. 492, 158 N. E. 148; State v. Phillips, 73 Minn. 77, 75 N.W. 1029; State v. Cagle, 111 S.C. 548, 96 S.E. 291; People v. Coon, 67 Hun. 523, 22 N.Y.S. 865. The reformatory at El Reno, Oklahoma, is a penal institution. But it is essentially correctional in nature, designed and operated especially for the detention, reformation, and rehabilitation of mild offenders and others indicating capacity for reform and rehabilitation. It differs substantially from an ordinary penitentiary for the imprisonment of persons convicted of serious crimes. It is not a penitentiary within the intent and meaning of the 42nd article of war.
The other contention advanced by petitioner is that he occupies the same status in the reformatory as any civilian prisoner; that his chances for commutation and reactivation into the service would be less severe if he were confined in the disciplinary barracks; and that therefore his confinement in the reformatory results in a more severe penalty than his original sentence. By Manual Bulletin No. 219 of the Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice, all federal penal and correctional institutions are directed to accept the sentences of prisoners transferred from military installations, as computed by officials of such military installations, and to allow good time at the military rate. The bulletin further provides that the objective is to follow the same policies on sentence construction, good time allowance, forfeiture, and restorations, as the War Department follows in the case of prisoners who remain in military installations. And it further provides that the intent is to protect against any increase in punishment for military prisoners sentenced to confinement in military installations. The bulletin makes it clear that the transfer of petitioner to the reformatory and his present confinement there docs not result in any increase in penalty for his violations of the articles of war.
The order denying the petition for the writ 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