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:
UNITED STATES v. ANSELMI. UNITED STATES ex rel. ANSELMI v. ATTORNEY GENERAL et al.
Nos. 11027, 11055.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 1953.
Decided Aug. 11, 1953.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1953.
Carlo L. Anselmi, pro se.
Edward C. Boyle, U. S. Atty., and Philip O. Carr, Asst. U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.
Before MARTS, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
MARIS, Circuit Judge.
Carlo L. Anselmi, the present appellant, was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania upon two indictments charging him with using the mails to defraud and on November 14, 1951 was sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment upon both indictments. Anselmi thereupon filed notices of appeal. On June 2, 1952 upon motion of the Government his appeals were ordered by this court to be docketed and dismissed for want of prosecution. Motions by Anselmi to redocket the appeals were denied on September 25, 1952 and petitions for rehearing were denied by this court on December 5, 1952. A writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court on May 4, 1953. Anselmi v. United States, 345 U.S. 947, 73 S.Ct. 868.
On November 20, 1952 Anselmi filed a motion pursuant to section 2255 of title 28 United States Code, seeking to have the district court vacate the sentence which it had imposed on him. Anselmi was then in the federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg but was returned to Pittsburgh and hearings on his motion were held by the district court there in January 1953. On January 20,1953 while he was in Pittsburgh Anselmi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, which was denied by the court on January 20, 1953. His motion filed under section 2255 was denied by the court on February 6, 1953. The appeals now before us were taken by An-selmi from these two orders of denial.
In his motion filed under section 2255 Anselmi raised a number of questions with respect to his trial and conviction. Most of these were alleged trial errors which he was not entitled to raise either under section 2255 or on an application for a writ of habeas corpus. All of them were fully considered and correctly disposed of by Judge Marsh in his opinion denying the motion. We, therefore, need not discuss them in detail. Nor need we discuss in detail the action of the district court in denying Anselmi’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. In view of the pending motion under section 2255 that action was clearly proper.
Anselmi raises in this court a constitutional question which calls for brief discussion. He urges that section 2255 of title 28 is unconstitutional because it operates to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in violation of Article I, section 9, clause 2, of the Constitution. We do not agree. On the contrary, section 2255 is a remedial statute the purpose of which is to afford to a convicted federal prisoner a remedy which is the substantial equivalent of the conventional writ of habeas corpus but in a more convenient forum, the original trial court. To limit the prisoner to this remedy, except when it is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, as section 2255 does, is not to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. So long as there is open to the prisoner an adequate and effective remedy in one court, with full right of review by appeal and petition for certiorari, it is not a suspension of the writ to withhold jurisdiction from other federal courts. Martin v. Hiatt, 5 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 350; Barrett v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 1950, 180 F.2d 510, 20 A.L.R.2d 965, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 897, 71 S.Ct. 234, 95 L.Ed. 650.
Indeed it would appear that the complete denial of the writ of habeas corpus to convicted federal prisoners would not violate the Constitution. For under the English Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, 31 Car. II, c. 2, as well as under the common law in force when the Constitution was adopted, habeas corpus was not available to persons convicted of crime to test the legality of their conviction. Ex parte Watkins, 1830, 3 Pet. 193, 28 U.S. 193, 7 L.Ed. 650. And until the passage of the Act of February 5, 1867, 14 Stat. 385, this was the rule in the federal courts. United States v. Hayman, 1952, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232. In any event it is clear that Anselmi had a full opportunity at the hearing of his motion under section 2255 to raise all the questions with respect to his prior conviction which he sought to raise by his application for a writ of habeas corpus. He accordingly was not prejudiced by the action of the district court in denying him the writ pursuant to the mandate of section 2255.
The orders 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