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:
Nolan Ray WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William SAXBE, United States Attorney General, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 74-2019.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
April 4, 1975.
Nolan Ray Williamson, Jef Feibelman, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas F. Turley, U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., Larry E. Parrish, Robert M. Williams, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., for defendants-appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and WEICK and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
At the time when he was awaiting trial under an indictment in the Western District of Tenness.ee, Nolan Ray Williamson refused to obey an order of the District Court requiring him to give voice exemplars. When he persisted in his refusal, the District Court on December 27, 1972, adjudged him to be in contempt of court and ordered him incarcerated until he gave voice exemplars as ordered. This court granted a motion to dismiss the appeal from that decision in an unpublished order, No. 73-1495, dated November 13, 1973.
Prior to his incarceration for contempt of court, Williamson had been convicted and sentenced for a separate offense in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. He filed a complaint for declaratory relief, praying for a declaration that he is entitled to jail-time credit on his Georgia sentence for the time he has served in prison for contempt of court.
The District Court held he is not entitled to jail-time credit and dismissed the complaint. The present appeal is from that decision. Counsel was appointed to represent Williamson both in the District Court and in this court in this declaratory judgment proceeding. Counsel has filed an excellent brief in this court in support of Williamson’s contentions.
The record shows that at the time Williamson was adjudged to be in contempt of court, he was afforded every reasonable opportunity to change his mind and to give the voice exemplars as ordered. The District Judge stated in open court in the presence of Williamson that, in order that there would be no misunderstanding, he was making it plain that Williamson would receive no credit against federal criminal sentences for the jail time accruing while he was incarcerated for contempt of court.
We follow Anglin v. Johnston, 504 F.2d 1165 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 95 S.Ct. 1353, 43 L.Ed.2d 440 (1975), in affirming the decision of the District Court. The facts in Anglin are squarely on point except the reason for which the civil contempt penalty was imposed.
Williamson contends that he is entitled to jail-time credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3568, which provides:
§ 3568. Effective date of sentence; credit for time in custody prior to the imposition of sentence
The sentence of imprisonment of any person convicted of an offense shall commence to run from the date on which such person is received at the penitentiary, reformatory, or jail for service of such sentence. The Attorney General shall give any such person credit toward service of his sentence for any days spent in custody in connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was imposed.
The fallacy in this argument is that Williamson’s civil contempt incarceration was not “in connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was imposed.”
To hold that Williamson has a right to jail-time credit under the facts of this case would interfere seriously with the power of District Courts to punish civil contempt by incarceration when the person who is guilty of contempt is under sentence for some other offense.
Affirmed.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0