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:
David S. JACOBANIS, Petitioner, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent, Appellee.
No. 5377.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 1958.
Decided June 13, 1958.
Rehearing Denied July 2, 1958.
David S. Jacobanis, pro se, on motion.
Anthony Julian, U. S. Atty., and William J. Koen and Charles F. Barrett, Asst. U. S. Attys., Boston, Mass., for ap-pellee.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
There awaits our disposition a motion by David S. Jacobanis for the appointment of counsel. Though Jacobanis has not prosecuted this appeal in forma pau-peris, because he is not a citizen of the United States, an affidavit attached to his motion affirms that he is “indigent” and wholly without legal knowledge necessary to conduct his appeal.
It seems that on October 27, 1952, the United States District .Court for the District of Massachusetts, after verdict of guilty, entered judgment and commitment against Jacobanis for a term of twenty-five years’ imprisonment on a charge of bank robbery and incidental crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Jacobanis took an appeal from this judgment of conviction, but this court on April 17, 1953, entered the following order: “Upon consideration of motion of appellee to docket and dismiss, and of memorandum of appellant in opposition thereto, It is ordered that this case be docketed, and It is further ordered that the appeal herein be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for want of diligent prosecution.”
Under date of March 23, 1958, Jacobanis, writing from Alcatraz, California, addressed a lengthy and rather confusing letter or document to Chief Judge Sweeney. This letter, proceeding upon the erroneous assumption that the district court had granted a new trial to Jacobanis’ co-defendant Theodore Green, asked the court of its own motion to “grant me the same relief granted Green, whatever that may have been.” Following various allegations of misconduct by the prosecuting officials, Jacobanis concluded with a prayer that the court “grant me a new trial”, which of course the court had long since lost power to grant. Rule 33, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. Other allegations seem directed toward a revival of the old appeal from the judgment of conviction, which the court of appeals had dismissed in 1953. This part of the letter was of no concern to the district court. Certain other allegations in the document or letter might by a bit of liberal interpretation be construed to be a pleading for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Judge Wyzanski, to whom Judge Sweeney had transmitted the foregoing letter, entered an order on April 17,1958, in the following terms: “Whether the document dated March 23, 1958 addressed to Chief Judge Sweeney be construed as a motion to vacate sentence imposed on October 27, 1952 or as a motion for some other type of relief, the said motion, in accordance with the memorandum filed this day, is Ordered denied.”
There followed some correspondence between Jacobanis and Judge Wyzanski with reference to the judge’s memorandum of April 17, 1958.
Finally, on May 19, 1958, Jaeobanis filed in the district court a so-called Notice of Appeal which, for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., was obviously inadequate to confer upon this court any appellate jurisdiction. This notice, in designating the order appealed from, states merely “Correspondence Seeking Relief”.
We shall therefore on our own motion enter an order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It necessarily follows that the motion for appointment of counsel to prosecute the appeal is also denied.

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