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:
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Gene J. TORRES, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 72-1260.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
June 9, 1972.
Lorenzo E. Tapia, Joseph D. Beaty, Albuquerque, N. M., for appellant.
Donald J. Wilson, Albuquerque, N. M., for appellee.
Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, and McWILLIAMS and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from dismissal of a petition for removal to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Torres presently stands charged with a state offense in Criminal Cause No. 9305, pending in the District Court for the Second Judicial District, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico. Seeking removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, Torres alleged that more than one year and two months have elapsed since a prior mistrial was declared in his case. The case has been reset for trial, but in the interim the New Mexico Supreme Court and the New Mexico Legislature have adopted rules and statutes providing for dismissal of indictments in certain unduly delayed trials. However, the State has declined to hold these provisions retroactive. Torres contends that the failure to apply these new rules retroactively is a denial of equal protection, in that it discriminates against defendants who were indicted prior to the effective date of the rules. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court remanded the cause to the state court.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) permits removal of criminal prosecutions “[a]gainst any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of [the] State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof.” Removal is available only when the defendant can claim rights under a law providing for specific civil rights in terms of racial equality. Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (1966); Georgia v. Spencer, 441 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 403 U.S. 934, 91 S.Ct. 2265, 29 L.Ed.2d 714 (1971). “The statute does not authorize removal to protect the broad guarantees of the constitution.” Miller v. Wade, 420 F.2d 489, 490 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 1068, 90 S.Ct. 1509, 25 L.Ed.2d 690 (1970); Naugle v. Oklahoma, 429 F.2d 1268 (10th Cir. 1970).
Upon docketing, this case was assigned to the summary calendar. Appellant has filed a memorandum in opposition to summary affirmance. Nonetheless, a careful review of the files and records in this cause convinces us that there is no need for further argument and that the judgment of the district court is correct.
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