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 of America, Appellee, v. James ARTERBRIDGE, Appellant.
No. 347, Docket 30973.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued March 13, 1967.
Decided March 14, 1967.
Roger J. Hawke, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for Southern Dist. of New York, Pierre N. Leval, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Kevin T. Duffy, New York City, for appellant.
Before KAUFMAN, ANDERSON and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After a trial without jury, Judge MeGohey found appellant guilty of trafficking in narcotic drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 173 and 174, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. In open court we have affirmed the conviction.
It is undisputed that on the evening of July 11, 1963, appellant delivered a package containing heroin to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Appellant testified at his trial, however, that an acquaintance, Abe Montgomery (who unknown to appellant was a government informer), had told him that he had a buyer for narcotics but did not have any drugs to deliver. According to Arterbridge, Montgomery then offered him $5.00 to deliver a package to the buyer. Appellant testified that Montgomery stated that the package contained only milk sugar. Montgomery, on the other hand, denied having made any arrangement whatsoever with the appellant.
Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction because there was no proof that he knew that the package contained narcotics. However, 21 U.S. C. § 174 provides:
Whenever on trial for a violation of this section the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of the narcotic drug, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains the possession to the satisfaction of the jury.
From the evidence presented, Judge MeGohey could properly have concluded that appellant had not satisfactorily explained his possession of the narcotics. Arterbridge’s testimony as to the alleged arrangement with Montgomery was wholly contradicted by Montgomery. The trial judge observed both witnesses and therefore was able to assess their credibility. Conclusions as to the credibility of witnesses should not be disturbed on appeal. United States v. Brown, 335 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1964). Moreover, statements made by appellant at the time he delivered the narcotics to Federal Agent Coursey indicate that he was aware of another transaction in narcotics that had occurred the previous evening. Appellant’s statements and furtiveness, coupled with his delivery of the heroin and Montgomery’s testimony, constituted sufficient evidence from which to infer that appellant had knowledge of the contents of the package. See United States v. Palmiotto, 347 F.2d 223 (2d Cir. 1965); United States v. Davis, 328 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1964).
Affirmed.
21 U.S.C. § 174 provides in part:
Whoever fraudulently or knowingly * * * facilitates the * * * sale of any such narcotic drug [as described in 21 U.S.C. § 173] * * * shall be imprisoned for not less than five years or more than twenty years * * *.
(Emphasis added.)

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