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:
Ezra Lee HEREDEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 6571.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 19, 1961.
Stanley J. Myers, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
John M. Amick, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl. (Paul W. Cress, U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HUXMAN, PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
PICKETT, Circuit Judge.
The defendant, Hereden, was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma for violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314. Prior to arraignment, Hereden, through his attorney, moved for a mental examination as provided for in Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 4244, alleging that he had been previously adjudged insane and committed to the Eastern State Hospital at Vinita, Oklahoma. The motion was granted, and Hereden was committed to the Federal Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri for mental examination. The Medical Center reported to the District Judge that its psychiatric staff was of the opinion that the defendant was able to properly assist in his defense and was competent to stand trial. Thereafter Here-den appeared in open court with his counsel, pleaded not guilty, and was tried and convicted of the offense charged.
The purpose of Section 4244, while specifically preserving the defense of insanity at trial, is to provide a procedure in federal courts for judicially determining mental competency prior to trial. Greenwood v. United States, 350 U.S. 366, 76 S.Ct. 410, 100 L.Ed. 412; Krupnick v. United States, 8 Cir., 264 F.2d 213. When the defendant in a criminal case has been examined by a qualified psychiatrist as provided for in this Section, and the report indicates a state of present insanity or mental incompetency, the court shall hold a hearing, after due notice, to determine the mental competency of the accused. After the hearing, the court may find that the accused is mentally competent to stand trial, but the finding “shall in no way prejudice the accused in a plea of insanity as a defense to the crime charged * * When the report does not indicate a state of present insanity or mental incompetency, no further action by the trial court on the question of insanity is necessary prior to trial.
Hereden’s argument here is that the allegation of a former adjudication of insanity in a state court had the same effect as a report from a court-appointed psychiatrist that the accused was mentally incompetent to-stand trial, which necessitated a judicial determination of his present sanity. There is no merit to this contention. The court accepted the showing of a former adjudication of insanity as reasonable cause for examination under Section 4244. The procedure provided for in that Section was followed, and when the psychiatric report did not indicate mental incompetency, the defendant proceeded to trial without objection, but with the right of insanity as a defense.
This case is not like Gunther v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 243, 215 F.2d 493, and Contee v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 215 F.2d 324, in both of which the trial court, relying upon a later psychiatric report showing a return to competency, directed trial of the defendant without a judicial determination of competency, even though, in both instances, the same court had previously made a judicial determination of incompetency.
We have held in a number of cases that judgment and sentence is not subject to collateral attack in a § 2255 proceeding on the ground that the prisoner was insane at the time of trial or the commission of the offense if these issues were not presented to the trial court or, if raised, they were determined by the trial court. Nunley v. United States, 10 Cir., 283 F.2d 651, and cases cited.
Affirmed.
. When the hearing results in a finding that the accused is mentally incompetent, the court may commit the accused to the custody of the Attorney General, or his authorized representative, until the accused is mentally competent to stand trial or until the - pending charges are disposed of according to law. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4246.

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