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 "fiduciaries". 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:
James R. WEBER, Appellant, v. Hugh F. RIVERS, etc., et al., Appellees. John LEE, Appellant, v. Hugh F. RIVERS, D. C. Parole Board et al., Appellees. Robert WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF PAROLE, Appellee.
Nos. 10358, 10362, 10375.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 9, 1966.
Decided April 7, 1967.
Thomas R. Dyson, Jr., Washington, D. C. (Court-assigned counsel), for appellant Weber.
Richard W. Barton, Assistant Corp. Counsel, District of Columbia (Milton D. Korman, Acting Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, District of Columbia, on brief), for appellees in No. 10358.
Charles S. Perry, Alexandria, Va. (Court-assigned counsel) [Boothe, Dudley, Koontz, Blankingship & Stump, Alexandria, Va., on brief], for appellant Lee.
Charles S. Perry, Alexandria, Va. (Court-assigned counsel) [Boothe, Dudley, Koontz, Blankingship & Stump, Alexandria, Va., on brief], for appellant Wright.
John R. Hess, Asst. Corp. Counsel, District of Columbia (Milton D. Korman, Acting Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, District of Columbia, on brief), for appellees in Nos. 10362 and 10375.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In each of these three cases, a District of Columbia prisoner, confined in Lorton Reformatory in the Northern District of Virginia, filed a proceeding against the District of Columbia Parole Board complaining of its procedures in revoking the parole of the complainant. In each instance, the District Court dismissed the petition on the merits, and an appeal was taken. The Government challenges the jurisdiction of the District Court to determine the cases on the merits, and we conclude that the cases should have been transferred to the District of Columbia Circuit.
Lorton Reformatory is a penal institution operated by the District of Columbia. Since it is physically located in the Eastern District of Virginia, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus proceedings, and personal jurisdiction of the Warden, of course, may be obtained in that District.
The members of the District of Columbia Parole Board, however, reside in the District of Columbia, and it is there that they perform their official functions. Jurisdiction may not ordinarily be obtained of that Board in the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Courts of the District of Columbia Circuit are called upon with frequency to review the proceedings and actions of the District of Columbia Parole Board. The Courts of the District of Columbia have prescribed certain standards, to which the District of Columbia Parole Board must conform its proceedings. See Hyser v. Reed, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 318 F.2d 225. If, in a particular case, personal jurisdiction of the members of the District of Columbia Parole Board was obtained in the Eastern District of Virginia, exercise of the jurisdiction would be highly questionable when the District Court, and this Court on appeal, would be confronted with the dilemma of speaking with the voice of the District of Columbia Circuit, or subjecting the District of Columbia Parole Board to the grave possibility of inconsistent and disruptive requirements with respect to the routine conduct of its affairs.
We conclude that each of these cases should have been transferred to the District of Columbia Circuit. Under the circumstances, the orders dismissing the petitions on the merits will be vacated and the cases will be remanded to the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, with instruction to transfer them to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Vacated and remanded.
Judge Bell expressed approval of the result in these cases, though he died before this opinion was prepared.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0