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:
Jimmie ROSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wilbur COHEN, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18648.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 13, 1969.
Ronald W. May, Pikeville, Ky., for plaintiff-appellant.
George I. Cline, U. S. Atty., Moss Noble, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., for defendant-appellee.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, O’SULLIVAN and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court affirming the final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, which denied appellant’s application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, §§ 216(i) and 223, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423. The appeal was submitted to the Court on briefs and the record without oral argument.
The only question before us is whether the Secretary’s finding that appellant is able to engage in substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Appellant is a 58-year old coal miner who completed the third grade of - school, and although he can read simple print, he can write only his name. He filed an application with the Secretary on March 19, 1963, alleging disability from November 13,1962 due to second stage silicosis. Appellant’s claim was denied initially and on all subsequent administrative appeals. Thereafter he filed a timely appeal in the District Court, which remanded the case to the Secretary for further administrative proceedings. • On June 15, 1965, the hearing examiner issued a recommended decision denying appellant’s claim and the Appeals Council adopted the decision in full.
At the remanded hearing two medical experts testified that the appellant had the physical capability to perform light or sedentary work in a dust-free atmosphere. On cross-examination one of the medical experts testified that he was uncertain that appellant could perform the jobs enumerated by the vocational witness on a sustained basis, depending upon the nature of the job. The other medical expert stated on cross-examination that he did not know what all the jobs were. The vocational expert, relying upon secondary sources including The Detailed Census Characteristics of the Population relating to West Virginia and Kentucky, the 1964 Kentucky Industrial Directory, and the West Virginia Manufacturer’s Directory, testified that the appellant had the transferability of skills to perform light or sedentary work and that such work existed in the geographic area in which appellant lived. Appellant testified that he suffered “blind dizzy spells” two to three times a day, which required him to rest for periods of up to an hour. No medical testimony was offered to support appellant’s claim that he suffered dizzy spells.
The hearing examiner found that appellant’s condition precluded him from working in coal mines. The substantial question in the case is whether he had the capacity to engage in other substantial gainful activity, taking into account his age, educational qualifications, work experience and physical condition.
The Appeals Council found that appellant’s respiratory impairments, principally pneumoconiosis, were essentially mild and resulted in only slight restriction in his breathing capacity. In other respects his condition was essentially normal.
This Court is bound by the findings of the Secretary if they are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Walters v. Gardner, 397 F.2d 89 (6th Cir. 1968); Lewis v. Gardner, 396 F.2d 436 (6th Cir. 1968); Lane v. Gardner, 374 F.2d 612 (6th Cir. 1967). We are of the opinion that there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the Secretary that the appellant was capable of engaging in substantial gainful work.
Appellant also argues that the testimony of the vocational witness does not support the finding that there were jobs existing as distinct job entities either within or without the region of appellant’s residence. Although the vocational witness did not have personal knowledge of any jobs, he did enumerate jobs listed in several secondary reference sources.
During the pendency of this action, Section 223 of the Social Security Act was amended in 1968, as follows:
“(2) For purposes of paragraph (1) (A)—
(A) an individual (except a widow, surviving divorced wife, or widower for purposes of section 202(e) or (f) shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work. For purposes of the preceding sentence (with respect to any individual), ‘work which exists in the national economy’ means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country.” (42 U.S.C. § 423)
The Amendment applies to this action. Pub.L.No. 90-248, § 158(e), 81 Stat. 821 (Jan. 2, 1968). Walters v. Gardner, supra; Mullins v. Gardner, 396 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1968); Davis v. Gardner, 395 F.2d 681 (6th Cir. 1968). The Amendment does not require that the vocational witness have personal knowledge of the exact nature and duties of the jobs listed.
There is substantial evidence to support the finding that such work that the appellant can perform exists in the national economy. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is 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