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 "groups and associations". 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:
AIR LINE STEWARDS AND STEWARDESSES ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, a Labor Organization, Appellant, v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD et al., Appellees.
No. 16340.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June 16, 1961.
Decided July 13, 1961.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 20, 1961.
Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Mitchell J. Cooper, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept, of Justice, with whom Mr. William H. Or-rick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees National Mediation Board and others. Mr. Harold D. Rhynedance, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellees, National Mediation Board and others.
Mr. Stuart Bernstein, Chicago, 111., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Robert L. Stern, Chicago, 111., and James Francis Reilly, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee United Air Lines, Inc.
Mr. Robert Plotkin, Chicago, 111., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Stephen I. Schlossberg, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee, Air Line Pilots Ass’n, International.
Before Edgerton, Washington and Danaher, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case is similar in many respects to UNA Chapter, Flight Engineers’ International Association v. National Mediation Board, 1961, 111 U.S. App.D.C.-, 294 F.2d 905. This, too, is a suit against the National Mediation Board and its members to set aside a determination in a representation case. Here, the Board recognized the stewards and stewardesses of United Airlines as a craft or class. It made a like ruling as to similar employees of Braniff Airlines. Each group voted in elections in which no other group participated. What is complained of is that the Board allowed the Air Line Pilots Association (ALFA) to appear on the ballot. It won both elections. The plaintiff-appellant, the Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Association, brought suit in the District Court, alleging that pilots perform some supervisory and managerial functions in regard to stewards and stewardesses, and hence that their union is ineligible to represent the persons whom they supervise. The short answer is that the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., does not forbid this, expressly or by implication. The District Court rightly dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction under Switchmen’s Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 1943, 320 U.S. 297, 64 S.Ct. 95, 88 L.Ed. 61. Appellant’s reliance on Leedom v. Kyne, 1958, 358 U.S. 184, 79 S.Ct. 180, 3 L.Ed.2d 210, is misplaced, for the reasons given in our opinion in Flight Engineers.
Nor is any constitutional question presented. The Mediation Board — ■ as distinguished from committees appointed by it — is not required to give a hearing to a protesting union. See Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board, supra at page 304 of 320 U.S., at page 98 of 64 S.Ct. Appellant’s argument to the contrary is untenable. The complaint contains allegations that United and Braniff coerced the stewards and stewardesses into voting for ALP A. These allegations seem purely conclusory, and based largely if not wholly on the argument that pilots are part of management. This sort of claim does not create jurisdiction in the District Court to set aside the Board’s determination. See 2 Moore, Federal Practice para. 12.08, at 2244-45 (2d ed. 1960). If appellant’s charge of coercion has any substance, appellant can apply for the institution of a criminal prosecution. See Railway Labor Act, Section 2, Tenth, 45 U.S.C.A. § 152.
Affirmed.
. If in fact ALPA’s representation proves inadequate or discriminatory, persons aggrieved will not lack remedy. Cf. Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 1944, 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173.

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

Choices:

Answer: 1