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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Michael BERRY, Robert Hugh Wilson, and Donald Gene Richardson, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 76-2014, 76-2037 and 76-2038.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Jan. 31, 1978.
Rehearing Denied March 20, 1978.
The Hon. William J. Campbell, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is sitting by designation.
ON REHEARING
Before PELL and BAUER, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge.
BAUER, Circuit Judge.
In an opinion Issued on August 24, 1977, this Court determined that the warrantless search of an arrestee’s briefcase conducted after the arrest and while the briefcase was in police custody violated the Fourth Amendment under standards articulated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977). United States v. Berry, 560 F.2d 861 (7th Cir. 1977). In response to the Government’s Petition for Rehearing, we now grant the petition, and, without oral argument, vacate the earlier opinion as improvidently rendered. Our decision today rests on the conclusion that the exclusionary rule should not be applied retroactively to suppress evidence obtained from the pre-Chadwick search of an arrestee’s briefcase.
The problem of retroactive application of the exclusionary rule in a Fourth Amendment setting was squarely faced by the Supreme Court in United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 95 S.Ct. 2313, 45 L.Ed.2d 374 (1975). Citing two major rationales for the exclusionary rule — the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations and the “imperative of judicial integrity” — the Court concluded that neither purpose would be served by excluding evidence that “law enforcement officers reasonably believed in good faith . was admissible at trial,” even if decisions subsequent to the search “broadened the exclusionary rule to encompass evidence seized in that manner.” United States v. Peltier, supra at 537, 542, 95 S.Ct. at 2317. Thus, according to the Court, the critical question in determining if the exclusionary rule should be applied retroactively on a given set of facts is not so much whether the decision invalidating the search “constitutes a sharp break in the line of earlier authority,” Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481, 499, 88 S.Ct. 2224, 2234, 20 L.Ed.2d 1231 (1968), but rather, “[whether] the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Peltier, supra, 422 U.S. at 542, 95 S.Ct. at 2320.
Relying on this formulation of the inquiry, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Montgomery, 558 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1977), and the Second Circuit in United States v. Reda, 563 F.2d 510 (2nd Cir. 1977), have held that Chadwick is not to be applied retroactively. We find this position persuasive for, until Chadwick, there was no reason for law enforcement officials to believe that attache cases were not among those personal effects which, under United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973), could be seized as part of a “full search of the person” incident to a lawful arrest, and which, under United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 94 S.Ct. 1234, 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974), could be searched several hours after the suspect had been taken into custody. More to the point, on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Robinson and Edwards, courts of appeals had held (prior to Chadwick) that law enforcement officials may indeed seize a briefcase or package in the possession of a person at the time of arrest, and subsequently search the property without a warrant after the arrested person has been taken into custody. United States v. Schleis, 543 F.2d 59 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Battle, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 510 F.2d 776 (1975). See also United States ex rel. Muhammed v. Mancusi, 432 F.2d 1046 (2d Cir. 1970).
In the light of this authority, we cannot say that the law enforcement officials here could be properly charged with knowledge that the search of Wilson’s briefcase was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Peltier, supra, 422 U.S. at 542, 95 S.Ct. 2313. For this reason, we decline to apply the exclusionary rule retroactively to suppress the evidence obtained from that search. Thus, our opinion of August 24, 1977 is hereby vacated and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The retroactivity issue was fully addressed in both the Government’s Petition for Rehearing and the Defendants-Appellants’ Answer. It was not raised by either party in the earlier proceedings, however, since Chadwick was decided by the Supreme Court after oral argument in this case.

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