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:
Dallas O. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Winfred OVERHOLSER, Superintendent, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Appellee.
No. 14501.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June 23, 1958.
Decided July 2, 1958.
Mr. Richard Arens, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corporation Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corporation Counsel, and Andrew G. Conlyn, Asst. Corporation Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corporation Counsel, also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before Edgerton, Chief-Judge, Madden, Judge, United States Court of Claims, and Burger, Circuit Judge.
Sitting by designation pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 291(a), Title 28, U.S.Code.
EDGERTON, Chief Judge.
Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of public drunkenness. The Municipal Court set aside the plea and committed appellant to D. C. General Hospital for examination and observation. The hospital’s chief psychiatrist reported to the court that appellant was psychotic and dangerous to himself and others. The report said nothing about competency to stand trial. The Municipal Court, after hearing testimony, found appellant “of unsound mind” and ordered him confined in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital “until released in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Congress approved August 9, 1955, 69 Stat. 609, Ch. 673, Section 1,” § 24-301 (a), D.C.Code (1951) Supp. VI. The Municipal Court did not find whether appellant was or was not competent to stand trial.
Appellant sought release from the Hospital in habeas corpus, by a petition filed in the District Court April 29. The District Court entered an order which recited : “ * * * it appearing to the Court that petitioner is illegally detained in the absence of a determination by the Municipal Court of his competency to stand trial, it is therefore this 27th day of May, 1958, Ordered: That unless within ten days from the date of this order, or such extension thereof as may be granted by this Court for good cause shown, the Municipal Court determine petitioner’s mental capacity to stand trial, the writ of habeas corpus shall issue.” At the same time the District Court, 162 F.Supp. 514, filed an opinion saying: “* * * If * * * he is found incompetent to stand trial he will be committed under the statute to a mental hospital. If he is found competent to stand trial, he will have his trial, and whether convicted or acquitted he will be returned to the mental hospital under the prior commitment on unsoundness of mind.”
We need not decide whether the District Court’s order standing alone would be a final order subject to review. Read with the opinion, we think it is clearly a final order. Read with the opinion, it determines that the appellant will be confined in a mental hospital, whether he is found competent or incompetent to stand trial.
The proceedings in the Municipal Court were ostensibly under § 24-301 (a) of the D.C.Code, which provides that when the mental competency of a person accused of crime is in issue “the court, after hearing without a jury, shall make a judicial determination of the competency of the accused to stand trial. If the court shall find the accused to be then of unsound mind or mentally incompetent to stand trial, the court shall order the accused confined to a hospital for the mentally ill.” The last sentence, as we road it in its context, comes only to this; the court shall order the accused confined in a mental hospital if it finds that because of unsoundness of mind or for any other reason he is mentally incompetent to stand trial.
Section 24-301 (b), which immediately follows, prescribes the machinery by which “Whenever an accused person confined to a hospital for the mentally ill is restored to mental competency in the opinion of the superintendent of said hospital”, the court may determine his competence to stand trial.
Title 21, beginning with § 306, of the District of Columbia Code contains elaborate provisions for commitment of persons alleged to be insane. In general, the procedure includes a report and recommendation by the Commission on Mental Health, a jury’s verdict if demanded, and an order of the District Court. In the present case, the Municipal Court and the District Court seem to have thought that when the person suspected of insanity is also accused of crime, Congress intends to bypass all those provisions and safeguards and to permit any trial court, including the Municipal Court, to commit the person to a mental hospital without benefit of a jury or of the Mental Health Commission, although he may be perfectly competent to stand trial. We think Congress had no such intention. Such an intention, if it were plainly expressed, would raise serious questions of due process of law and equal protection of the laws. If those questions could not otherwise be avoided, a very narrow interpretation of § 24-301 (a) would be justified and required. The purpose of § 24-301 (a), we think, is simply to prescribe the procedure for determining whether an accused person can understand the proceedings against him and properly assist in his defense, and to provide for his confinement in a hospital instead of a jail until he can.
The order of the District Court should be modified so as to provide, without prejudice to a prompt trial in the Municipal Court if appellant proves to be competent to stand trial, that the writ of habeas corpus shall issue unless within ten days either (1) the Municipal Court determines that he is mentally incompetent to stand trial and orders him confined on that ground or (2) “proper lunacy proceedings are instituted.” Barry v. Hall, 68 App.D.C. 350, 358, 98 F.2d 222, 230. Williams v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 250 F.2d 19, 26. And see Overholser v. Williams, 102 U.S. App.D.C. 248, 252 F.2d 629.
Order modified.

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