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:
In re Herbert Preston HARMON, Petitioner.
Misc. No. 377.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 1970.
Decided May 6, 1970.
Herbert Preston Harmon, pro se.
Before1 ALDRICH, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Harmon, now undergoing psychiatric observation at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4244, 4246, has asked us to vacate the order of the district court committing him to the custody of the Attorney General and to remand for a trial on the offense charged. The record indicates that a complaint was lodged against defendant in June, 1968, in the District of Puerto Rico for transporting a stolen aircraft across international borders, but was subsequently dismissed when examination raised doubts about defendant’s mental ability to stand trial. The government later renewed the complaint and the defendant was sent to the Medical Center, which eventually discharged him as improved. The district court then arranged for further mental examinations, and, after a hearing, concluded that defendant was still not competent to stand trial. The court therefore returned defendant to the Medical Center for further treatment.
Whatever may be defendant’s right to appeal from an order under 18 U.S.C. § 4244 or § 4246, see United States v. Davis, 365 F.2d 251 (6th Cir. 1966), defendant failed to file notice with the district court within the time prescribed by Rule 4(b), Fed.R.App. Proe. We therefore treat defendant’s papers as a request for permission to file a petition for mandamus. However, we must deny this request. The determination of the district court concerning competency to stand trial should not be set aside unless clearly arbitrary. Hall v. United States, 410 F.2d 653, 658 (4th Cir.1969); see United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 434 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973, 88 S.Ct. 472, 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967). While the accused in this case seems to have “a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him,” there was evidence calling into doubt his ability to “consult with his lawyer with a reasonable understanding * * * of the proceedings” under the stress of a trial. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960).
Nevertheless we are disturbed by the defendant’s lengthy confinement, now approaching a year, without the safeguards of a trial on the offense charged, or formal commitment proceedings addressed to defendant’s ability to function in society. Such confinement not only erodes the values protected by the right to a speedy trial, but also seems to be of questionable clinical value. See A. Rosenberg, Competency for Trial, 53 Judicature 316, 317 (March, 1970). Since we feel that defendant’s competency to stand trial should be redetermined in the near future, we suggest the following guidelines for the district court.
First, when the court appoints a psychiatrist under 18 U.S.C. § 4244, the psychiatrist, even if he may have hitherto acted in a personal relationship, should now consider himself an officer of the court, not responsible to prosecution or defense. Second, the expert appointed should have a substantial opportunity to observe the accused, and prior to the hearing required by section 4244, should file with the court a written report summarizing his observations and indicating whether he thinks the accused competent within the meaning of Dusky v. United States, supra. The report should be available to both prosecution and defense as a basis for examination of the psychiatrist at the hearing. Third, the more often trial is postponed, the more compelling should be the evidence justifying delay, and the more meticulous the procedural safeguards. Thus, if there has previously been a division of medical opinion, it might be advisable to appoint two or more psychiatrists to assist the court. Fourth, if the accused is committed to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246, the district court should require frequent reports on the accused’s mental condition at stated intervals.
Petition dismissed.

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