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 "fiduciaries". 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:
Russell SHEPPARD, Appellant, v. Barney CORNELIUS, trading as Barney Coal Company, and Leckie Smokeless Coal Company, Appellees. Ray E. RHODES, Appellant, v. Joe COSTA, trading as Joe Costa Coal Company, and Leckie Smokeless Coal Company, Appellees.
No. 8486.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 28, 1962.
Decided April 26, 1962.
James K. Edmundson, Beckley, W. Va., for appellants.
Joseph M. Holt, Lewisburg, W. Va., and George Richardson, Jr., Bluefield, W. Va., for appellees.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.
HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge.
In these proceedings, filed under § 16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the two plaintiffs assert a contractual claim to additional compensation by their employer. They had been paid at rates in excess of the minimum wages required by § 6 of the Act, but they contend that their employment was governed by the National Bituminous Coal Agreement of 1950, as amended, and they claim they should have been compensated at the higher rate specified in that agreement. They worked no more than forty hours in any week, so that the requirements of § 7 are not involved.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that there was no cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and no other basis of federal jurisdiction. We agree with the District Court.
By § 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employer may be held liable to an employee for unpaid wages due to have been paid under §§ 6 or 7 of the Act. The action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction. Section 6 of the Act is violated, however, only if the actual rate paid is less than the minimum specified in that section. There is a violation of § 7 if compensation for hours worked in any week in excess of the maximum number is at a rate less than one and one-half the regular rate. Where overtime compensation is involved, of course, it is necessary to determine what the regular rate is, and, to do so, reference must be had to the rates prescribed in any applicable collective bargaining agreement. Payment of contract rates is not required by § 6, however, for hours worked in any week if they do not exceed the maximum fixed by § 7. If, therefore, the plaintiffs' employment was governed by the National Bituminous Coal Agreement of 1950, they may have an action founded upon the contract for unpaid wages, but they have not shown a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Section 16 of that Act confers no jurisdiction upon this Court to adjudicate contractual claims for wages unless such adjudication is necessary to enforcement of the Act.
The plaintiffs seek to support the jurisdiction of the Court by reference to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. That Act, of course, permits actions in the District Courts of the United States, without regard to the amount in controversy, by or against a labor organization representing employees, for violations of collective bargaining agreements. It is now settled that the United States District Courts have jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration provisions of a collective bargaining contract at the instance of the recognized representative of the employees when the relief sought is additional compensation or benefits due the employees generally under other provisions of the •contract. Earlier, however, the Supreme Court had held there was no jurisdiction of an action brought by the recognized representative of the employees when the relief sought was additional1 compensation to individual employees alleged to be due under the terms of the collective agreement. The Supreme Court found no congressional intention “ * * * to open the doors of the federal courts to a potential flood of grievances based upon an employer’s failure to comply with terms of a collective agreement relating to compensation, terms peculiar in the individual benefit which is their subject matter and which, when violated, give a cause of action to the individual employee. * * * ” Enforcement of such rights was to be left to the individual employees.
Here, the employees’ representative, if there is one, is not a party to these actions. The Mine Workers are not here contending that they have a contract with the employers which the employers have violated. Jurisdiction, under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, to adjudicate claims by or against a labor organization representing employees does not extend to the claims of two employees asserting in their own names individual rights to additional compensation under a contract which they claim to be applicable.
Individual rights, individually asserted, though stemming from a collective employment agreement and solely dependent upon it, cannot be enforced under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. If there is substance in the rights asserted by these employees, the rights may be enforced through traditional actions brought in the state courts. There is no federal jurisdiction to enforce them.
Affirmed.
. 29 U.S.C.A. § 216.
. 29 U.S.C.A. § 206.
. 29 U.S.C.A. § 207.
. Sheppard v. Cornelius et al., D.C.S.D.W. Va., 194 F.Supp. 823.
. If there was a violation of § 7 of the Act, and the court determined that the contract rate was the regular rate within the meaning of that Section, the court would not be limited to an award of compensation for the overtime hour's worked. It could adjudicate the entire controversy by requiring payment of the contract rate for the first forty hours worked in each week and thus dispose of the entire controversy. When the court has jurisdiction of a federal claim under § 7 of the Act, it may proceed to adjudicate the closely related nonfederal contract claim for additional compensation during the first forty hours worked in any week. Manosky v. Betklehem-Hingham Shipyard, Inc., 1 Cir., 177 F.2d 529, 534. When there has been- no violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, however, § 16 of that Act confers no jurisdiction upon the court to award any relief.
. 29 U.S.C.A. § 185.
. Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972; United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424; Textile Workers Union of America v. Cone Mills Corp., 4 Cir., 268 F.2d 920.
. Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 348 U.S. 437, 75 S.Ct. 489, 99 L.Ed. 510.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0