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:
Valentin Zdravko NOVINC, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 15628.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Jan. 3, 1967.
Nathan T. Notkin, Chicago, 111., for petitioner.
Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, 111., for respondent.
Before ENOCH, SWYGERT and FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judges.
ENOCH, Circuit Judge.
The petitioner, Valentin Zdravko Novinc, seeks to review and reverse a decision of the respondent, Immigration and Naturalization Service, not to reopen deportation hearings to allow the petitioner to present further proofs.
The petitioner, a native and citizen of Yugoslavia, entered the United States as a stowaway in the summer of 1963. De-portability is conceded.
After a hearing July 16, 1964, he was ordered deported. He sought and was denied on October 8, 1964, a stay of deportation under § 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 1253(h), on the ground that deportation would result in his physical persecution. He was ordered to appear for deportation March 31, 1966. On March 29, 1966, he moved to reopen the hearing to present evidence under § 243(h) as amended October 3, 1965, which provided that he show only persecution and not necessarily physical persecution. On March 30, 1966, the District Director of respondent denied stay of deportation pending rule on the aforesaid motion. On April 1, 1966, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion to reopen. This petition for review followed. Petitioner asserts that denial of his motion to reopen was an abuse of discretion.
The respondent evidently considered the motion to reopen by reviewing the record previously made, in the light of the amendment, and concluded that the petitioner had not established that he would be subject to physical persecution under the old statute or to persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion under the amended statute.
The regulations pertinent to motions to reopen require that the new facts to be proved at the reopened hearing be stated in the motion and supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material. (8 C.F.R. § 3.8).
The evidence submitted at the original hearing by the petitioner and his witness, which presented some issues of credibility, led the Special Inquiry Officer to conclude that claims of persecution, other than criminal sanctions reconcilable with generally recognized concepts of justice, were speculative and unsupported by evidence. For example, the petitioner had corresponded with his mother, stepfather and sisters who said nothing to suggest that any of them had been imprisoned in Yugoslavia since the petitioner’s departure as a stowaway. Counsel for the petitioner argued in this Court it was unreasonable to conclude from such letters that they had not been imprisoned because they would not be permitted to write of such things. However, it would be equally unreasonable to conclude the opposite from their silence on the subject alone.
In his motion to reopen to allow presentation of evidence under the amended statute, the petitioner did not state what additional facts he proposed to prove and submitted no affidavits or other eviden-tiary supporting material with reference to such facts.
The petitioner asserts that the rule requiring submission of this information is not always strictly enforced and that proceedings are sometimes reopened on a simple unsupported motion. Whatever the circumstances may be in such other cases, the rule is clear and the petitioner did not comply with it.
We find no such abuse of discretion here as would justify our reversal of the decision of the respondent. United States ex rel. Cantisani v. Holton, 7 Cir., 1957, 248 F.2d 737, cert. den. 356 U.S. 932, 78 S.Ct. 774, 2 L.Ed.2d 762; Kam Ng v. Pilliod, 7 Cir., 1960, 279 F.2d 207, 210-211, cert. den. 365 U.S. 860, 81 S.Ct. 828, 5 L.Ed.2d 823; Blagaic v. Flagg, 7 Cir., 1962, 304 F.2d 623, 626.
The petition to review and reverse is denied.
Petition denied.

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