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:
Lewis E. TERRY, Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT OF FIELD UNIT #9, Appellee.
No. 71-1682.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Jan. 10, 1972.
Lewis E. Terry, pro se.
Overton P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, SOBELOFF, Senior Circuit Judge, and RUSSELL, Circuit Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Lewis E. Terry, a Virginia prisoner, seeks a certificate of probable cause to appeal an order of the district court refusing him habeas corpus relief.
On November 14, 1969, Terry pleaded not guilty to and was convicted of the separate offenses of assault and brandishing a firearm by a judge of the Bot-etourt County Court sitting without a jury. He was sentenced to serve six months in jail and to pay a fine of $500.00 for the brandishing conviction and he was sentenced to serve twelve months in jail and to pay a fine of $500.00 for the assault conviction. His total jail sentence was thus eighteen months. He appealed and was given a trial de novo in the Circuit Court of Botetourt County on January 7, 1970. He pleaded not guilty to the charges, was tried by a jury, and again convicted. He was sentenced by the jury to serve twelve months and to pay a fine of $100.00 for each offense. His total jail sentence was thus increased to two years. The reasons for this increased sentence do not affirmatively appear in the state court records.
Terry’s first claim is based on North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). In Pearce the Supreme Court said that “whenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial, the reasons for his doing so must affirmatively appear.” 395 U.S. at 726, 89 S.Ct. 2081. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Terry need not exhaust his state court remedies on this claim. Manns v. Allman, 324 F.Supp. 1149 (W.D.Va.1971). For the reasons stated in Levine v. Peyton, 444 F.2d 525 (4th Cir. 1971), however, we disagree with the district court’s second conclusion that Pearce does not apply to a jury sentencing. Therefore, in light of Levine and in light of Wood v. Ross, 434 F.2d 297 (4th Cir. 1970), which applied Pearce to a trial de novo, we hold that Terry is entitled to have his increased sentence vacated.
It is therefore ordered that six months of Terry’s twelve month sentence for brandishing a firearm be vacated and the respondent is directed to adjust his release date accordingly.
The district court’s decision dismissing Terry’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to exhaust state court remedies is affirmed.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, a certificate of probable cause to appeal is granted and the judgment of the district court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

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