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:
Lt. Henry C. LUNSFORD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melvin R. LAIRD, Secretary of Defense; Stanley R. Resor, Secretary of the Army; Commanding Officer, Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, New York, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 508, Docket 35441.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued March 10, 1971.
Decided March 29, 1971.
Morton Hollander, Washington, D. C. (Carl Eardley, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Edward R. Neaher, U. S. Atty., E. D. N. Y., Robert V. Zener, J. F. Bishop, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for defendants-appellants.
Michael N. Pollet, New York City (New York Civil Liberties Union, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and CURTIN, District Judge.
Of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Army regulations provide for four types of discharge certificates in the case of officers, Honorable, General (Under Honorable Conditions), General (Under Other Than Honorable Conditions) and Dishonorable. Army Reg. 635-5 ¶ 7b (January 23, 1967). Under regulations implementing 10 U.S.C. § 1163 (1964 and Supp.1971), various procedural rights are accorded a member of a reserve component who is separated for cause. Army Reg. 635-105 § 2-10 (1968). Officers with at least three years commissioned service are entitled to a board of inquiry and the concomitant procedural rights; in the case of officers with less service, a hearing is required only if an “other than honorable” separation is indicated. Army Reg. 635-105 § 2-15 (1968).
While appellee was on duty in Germany in 1969, his commanding officer recommended that he be discharged for “Mismanagement of personal affairs to the discredit of the service” and “Conduct unbecoming an officer.” The specific conduct charged against Lunsford involved passing dishonored checks, entering into financial transactions with an enlisted member of his unit, and accepting quarters allowance though he was occupying government quarters. It was also charged that he was found in a room with a German woman at 5:00 a. m. and that this woman had in her possession an ID and ration card issued in the name of Lunsford’s wife. Lunsford was advised that since he had not had three years service, he could not appear before a board of inquiry but could only submit a written rebuttal. After receiving this rebuttal, and after numerous procedural steps including a recommendation from a Lt. General Bennett that appellee “be furnished with a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions,” the. Army determined to separate appellee with a General Discharge certificate, and ordered him to proceed from Germany to Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, N. Y., for separation. Appellee then instituted this action claiming regulatory, statutory and constitutional violations.
Although Judge Dooling admitted that “it is not clear from the final papers in the series of papers” what discharge appellee was to receive, he decided that the Army was ignoring its own regulations requiring a board of inquiry if a discharge under “other than honorable conditions” was to be furnished. This he based on the assumption (which he indicated all parties assumed as well) that such discharge would be for “moral or professional dereliction.” He therefore enjoined the appellants from giving effect to the determination to eliminate appellee “until he is accorded the rights provided by Army Reg. 635-1025 § 2-10 (1968).” Were the assumption under which Judge Dooling proceeded correct, we would agree with his holding. At the argument of this appeal, however, appellant’s counsel affirmatively stated to this court that appellee was to be given a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions. This statement has been confirmed by a letter from counsel. Though the confusion engendered at the district court level is understandable, and though Judge Dooling’s assumption was justified under the circumstances, we feel that a remand is in order. The appellee is prepared to present argument based on the assumption that he will be given a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions. These arguments should first be passed upon by the district judge. Consequently we remand the case to Judge Dooling on the basis of the explicit judicial admission made by the Army through counsel for appellants.
Lunsford has also applied for an order restraining respondents from releasing him from active duty pending determination of his appeal. ■ We remand this application to Judge Dooling to be dealt with in connection with his consideration of the issues of the discharge.

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