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:
John L. JAMES, Appellant, v. The CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
No. 18300.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued April 7, 1970.
Decided May 4, 1970.
Kenneth W. Behrend, Behrend & Aronson, Pittsburgh, Pa (Mark B. Aron-son, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Frederick N. Egler, Egler, McGregor & Reinstadtler, Pittsburgh, Pa., for ap-pellee.
Before SEITZ and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges, and LATCHUM, District Judge.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the district court’s order denying a new trial. Appellant, a former insurance adjuster for Continental Insurance Company, sued to recover from Continental allegedly wil-fully-withheld overtime compensation claimed to be due pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. At trial the jury returned a special verdict for Continental, finding that appellant was not an employee covered by the Act. Appellant here assigns numerous errors to several rulings of the trial court and to its charge to the jury. We have considered all of these assignments of error and conclude that they are without merit.
Shortly prior to trial appellant filed a written motion requesting the “Court’s permission to interrogate jurors on the panel to be selected for the purpose of intelligently determining against which prospective jurors plaintiff should exercise his peremptory challenges.” Appellant claims prejudicial error in the district court’s denial of this motion. We disagree. Rule 47(a), F.R.Civ.P. confers upon the trial judge broad discretion as to the manner in which voir dire is conducted and the type and scope of questions to be asked. Kiernan v. Van Schaik, 347 F.2d 775, 778 (C.A. 3 1965). Of necessity, adequate information must be submitted to enable the court to exercise its discretion. The present record, however, indicates that the appellant submitted no information of any kind to guide the trial judge in determining whether voir dire should be permitted under Rule 47(a). Appellant neither listed the questions to be asked nor delineated the nature and scope of the proposed examination. Under such circumstances the denial of appellant’s motion was not error.
Appellant contends that prejudicial error also occurred when the trial court refused to give a requested charge in appellant’s language which purported to explain the distinction between the “exercise of skills and procedures” and the “exercise of discretion and independent judgment.” A reading of the whole charge including the supplement thereto shows that it adequately covered the material issues involved and was fair. Ridgway National Bank v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 326 F.2d 934 (C.A. 3 1964). A party has no vested interest in any particular form of instructions; the language of the charge is for the trial court to determine. If, from the entire charge, it appears that the jury has been fairly and adequately instructed, as we find it was, then the requirements of the law are satisfied. Barnett v. United States, 290 F.2d 795 (C.A. 5 1961).
Appellant further contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error in its pretrial rulings that appellant’s claim was limited by the two year statute of limitations imposed by 29 U. S.C. § 255, that his claim in suit, brought on October 10, 1966 was limited to the period between October 10, 1964 and April 9, 1965 when his employment terminated, and that the amendment to Section 255, effective February 1, 1967, which extended the limitation period to three years, if a wilful violation was involved, did not resurrect any part of plaintiff’s claims already barred by the two year limitation period. We are satisfied that the trial court rulings on these points were correct. Wisbey v. American Community Stores Corporation, 288 F.Supp. 728, 734 (D.Neb.1968).
Finally, appellant’s contention that the trial court committed prejudicial error in receiving evidence out of the jury’s presence after the case had been submitted on a special verdict in order for the trial court to determine the applicability of the “good faith” defenses provided in 29 U.S.C. §§ 259 and 260 is also without merit. The receipt of such evidence and the court’s subsequent determination that the “good faith” defenses were available to Continental had no effect whatsoever upon the special verdict rendered by the jury. Appellant could not be and was not prejudiced by withholding from the jury the “good faith” evidence which was favorable to Continental.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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