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:
Larry A. ROWE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 19909.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Sept. 20, 1966.
Decided Dec. 1, 1966.
Mr. Russell S. Bernhard, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.
Mr. Robert Kenly Webster, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, Wilbur K. Miller, Senior Circuit Judge, and Leventhal, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter, in two counts, and of assault with a deadly weapon. He alleges that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a judgment of acquittal, made at both the close of the government’s case and his case, because the jury could not have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that he had not acted in self-defense.
While appellant was visiting at the home of friends, the Woodsons, one Joe Canty, who inhabited an apartment in the home, was chased there by a group of five men with whom he had had an altercation on the street. The group remained in front of the home, and Wood-son came out to talk with them, apparently to send them away. An argument between the five and Woodson, two of his daughters, and Canty ensued, with Wood-son brandishing a hatchet and one of the group carrying a jack handle. At no time did any of the group enter the Woodson house or move up to the porch. Appellant left this scene, went to his nearby apartment, and returned with a fully loaded .25 caliber pistol which he kept there. There was testimony that as appellant approached the porch of the Woodson house, he passed in front of three of the five men who had gathered there, and made some kind of insulting comment to them. There was also testimony to suggest that the men did not rush the appellant until he had brought forth his gun, or fired a shot into the ground. Appellant, and other witnesses, testified that the group began to move toward him first, that he then pulled his gun and fired a warning shot, and that when they didn’t stop he began to shoot at them. Two of his attackers were killed, and a third was wounded. At this point, the other two stopped their advance, and defendant ran back into the Woodson house.
Appellant testified that he did not know any of the five personally, but that he knew one of them was the boy friend of the girl with whom he had spent the previous night, and that he believed this decedent had manhandled her earlier that morning and might have done harm to him if he knew who appellant was.
The jury could have concluded that the defendant was doing more than simply protecting himself against an unjustified attack. Defendant had reason to dislike and fear one of the five men; the altercation in front of the Woodson house involved friends of his; he left an apparently safe haven to arm himself and return to the scene; he inflamed the situation with his words to the men gathered there, even though he could have returned silently to the safety of the Wood-son porch. Finally, the jury could have credited the testimony of those eyewitnesses who suggested that defendant had fired or brandished his gun before he was rushed.
These facts could have led the jury to conclude that defendant returned to the scene to stir up further trouble, if not actually to kill anyone, and that his actions instigated the men into rushing him. Self-defense may not be claimed by one who deliberately places himself in a position where he has reason to believe “his presence * * * would provoke trouble.” Laney v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 56, 58, 294 F. 412, 414 (1923). Appellant cites numerous cases which hold that a defendant may claim self-defense if he arms himself in order to proceed upon his normal activities, even if he realizes that danger may await him. However, we think that the jury could have found that the course of action defendant here followed was for an unlawful purpose.
A defendant is not entitled to a directed judgment of acquittal if the trial judge determines that “upon the evidence, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact, a reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Curley v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 392, 160 F.2d 229, 232, cert. denied, 331 U.S. 837, 67 S.Ct. 1511, 91 L.Ed. 1850 (1947). The trial judge did not err in his refusal to direct an acquittal.
Affirmed.
. D.C.Code §§ 22-502, 22-2405. He was also convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, D.C.Code § 22-3204, but he does not appeal from that conviction.
. We do not consider appellant’s other claim that the trial court incorrectly ex-eluded evidence of prior acts of violence committed by one of the decedents, since this evidence was merely cumulative,

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