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:
UNITED STATES v. GORDIN (two cases).
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
December 2, 1925.)
Nos. 4365, 4366.
Appeal and error <§=>850(2) — Judgme'nt on general finding not reviewable on facts and law.
" Where, in action at' law, jury is waived, and the court makes a general finding for plaintiff,, reviewing court may not inquire into the facts and conclusions of .law on. which trial court’s judgment for -nominal damages rests, though it was stipulated that witnesses, if called, would testify to certain facts, i-
Appeals from the District Court of- the United States for. the'Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio; Smith Hiekenlooper, Judge. ...
Two actions by the United States, one aghinst William H. Gordin, and the othef against him as administrator of Richard B. Gordin, deceased. Judgments for nominal damages, and the [United States appeals; the cases being heard and submitted together.
Affirmed.
See, also, 287 F. 565.
J. F. Bohannon, Asst. to Sol. Dept. of Agriculture, of Washington, D. C. (Haveth E. Mau, U. S. Atty., and Harry A. Abrams, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for the United States.
Chase Stewart, of Springfield, Ohio (John M. Cole, of Springfield, Ohio, on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before DONAHUE, MOORMAN, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.
DONAHUE, Circuit Judge.
The United States brought separate actions at law against Wm. H. Gordin and Wm. H. Gordin, administrator of the estate of Richard B. Gordin, deceased, respectively, to recover excess profits made by each of these defendants in the handling of wool of the domestic' clip for the year 1918. Each of these eases involved substantially the same questions of faet and law, and it was therefore agreed by -counsel that the evidence introduced should be applicable and considered by the District Court equally in both cases. These separate error proceedings were likewise heard and submitted together.
The United States relied for recovery in each ease upon regulations issued by the War Industry Board on May 21, 1918, which provided for the licensing of “country dealers,” who buy wool from growers for the purpose of selling to central dealers, and declared that “country dealers” should he entitled in the wool business during the year of 1918 to receive a gross profit of 1% cents per pound on .the total season’s business, this profit to cover all expenses from grower to loading wool on board ears.
The defendants by answer admitted the creation of the War Industry Board; that it adopted regulations purporting to limit the gross profits of defendants to 1% cents per pound; that they applied for and obtained the permits; and denied each and every other allegation of the petition. Further answering, the defendants averred.that the alleged contract or agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, if any, was obtained by coercion and duress, in that defendant was. informed- he was required to obtain a permit and sign the alleged agreement, otherwise he would not be permitted to do ‘any business, and that the alleged contract was without any consideration whatever.
' In each of these cases the parties waived in writing a trial by jury, and the cause was submitted to the court .upon the evidence. The court made no separate findings of facts and law, but found, generally 'on the issues joined for the plaintiff in each of these cases, and entered judgment in each ease in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $1.00.
: It ••is insisted upon the part of the United States that the trial court erred to its prejudice in rendering judgment for nominal damages in the sum of $1, for the reason that the judgment should have been for the full amounts asked in the petitions “as disclosed by tho stipulation of facts and the documentary evidence.” This question is not presented by this record. Tho parties having waived a jury, and the finding of the District Court being a general finding for tho plaintiff, neither the evidence nor the question of law presented by it is reviewable by this court. Law v. U. S., 266 U. S. 494, 45 S. Ct. 175, 69 L. Ed. 401.
That case was decided August 5, 1925, and expressly holds that, where a jury has been waived and the court makes a general finding, it is not permissible for a court of review “to inquire into the facts and the conclusions of law on which the judgment of tho lower court rests” — citing Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125, 19 L. Ed. 608; Insurance Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237, 21 L. Ed. 827; Boardman v. Toffey, 117 U. S. 271, 6 S. Ct. 734, 29 L. Ed. 898. There are many other decisions by federal courts to the same effect, but in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Law v. U. S., supra, it is unnecessary to cite further authorities.
It is claimed, however, on the part of the United States, that this record contains an agreed statement of facts, and in support of this claim our attention is called to a stipulation of counsel as to what certain witnesses would testify, if they were called, sworn, and examined in open court. This was not an admission of the facts concerning which it was agreed the witnesses would testify as stipulated, but merely an agreement that these witnesses, if called and sworn, would so testify. The record in this respect is no wise different than it would be, if it appeared that these witnesses had acteally testified, and no stipulation whatever had been made in reference to their testimony.
Judgment 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: 0