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:
Masoud POURMEHDI, Appellant, v. NORTHWEST NATIONAL BANK, Appellee.
No. 87-2714.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 1988.
Decided June 28, 1988.
Lanny K. Solloway, Fayetteville, Ark., for appellant.
E. Lamar Pettus, Fayetteville, Ark., for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Masoud Pourmehdi appeals from the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Northwest National Bank in this diversity case governed by Arkansas tort law. For reversal, Pourmeh-di argues that the court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to his claim of malicious prosecution. We affirm the order of the district court.
In March 1985 Pourmehdi borrowed $3,000 from Northwest and executed a promissory note to the bank. As collateral, Pourmehdi gave the bank a man’s ring and several other pieces of jewelry. Pourmehdi presented an appraisal with the ring, identifying it as 14 karat gold inset with a one-half carat solitaire diamond. Pourmeh-di subsequently defaulted on the loan, and Northwest, while having the collateral appraised for sale, discovered that the stone in the ring was not a diamond. Northwest consulted an attorney, and then informed the prosecuting attorney about the overvalued collateral. Pourmehdi was charged with criminal simulation, a felony under Arkansas law. The charge was eventually disposed of by nolle prosequi upon payment of restitution and costs.
Pourmehdi then filed this action in state court, alleging malicious prosecution, false arrest and imprisonment, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Northwest removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion for summary judgment. Pourmehdi responded with an affidavit denying that he had intentionally overvalued the ring.
The court granted the motion, on the ground that Pourmehdi failed to produce sufficient evidence of the absence of probable cause for the proceedings against him, an essential element of a claim of malicious prosecution under Arkansas law. The court determined that because Northwest had done no more than inform the prosecutor of the facts relating to a supposed crime, Arkansas law “ ‘conclusively presume^] the existence of probable cause, the lack of which is a necessary element in a suit for malicious prosecution.’ ” Pourmehdi v. Northwest National Bank, letter memorandum at 3 (W.D.Ark. Nov. 24, 1987)(quoting Jennings Motors v. Burchfield, 182 Ark. 1047, 1049, 34 S.W.2d 455 (1931) (citations omitted)). The court added that Pourmehdi’s other claims failed as well, given this conclusion that Northwest did no more than what it had a legal right to do.
On appeal, Pourmehdi argues that disputed issues, as to the existence of probable cause and as to whether Northwest made full disclosure to the prosecutor, preclude summary judgment. He contends that the existence of probable cause is almost always a jury question. We think Pourmehdi misperceives his burden under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment * * * against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once Northwest pointed out to the trial court that there was no genuine issue as to the absence of probable cause, it became Pour-mehdi’s “burden to set forth affirmative evidence, specific facts, showing that there [was] a genuine dispute on that issue,” City of Mt. Pleasant v. Associated Elec. Coop., 838 F.2d 268, 274 (8th Cir.1988) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).
The standard for summary judgment mirrors that for a directed verdict under Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 250-52, 106 S.Ct. at 2511-12. There is no need to submit factual issues to a jury when the evidence proffered permits but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict. Id. Summary judgment was proper because Pourmehdi failed to set forth any evidence that Northwest lacked probable cause, i.e., “facts or credible information that would induce a person of ordinary caution to believe [Pourmehdi] to be guilty,” Parker v. Brush, 276 Ark. 437, 439, 637 S.W.2d 539, 540 (1982).
Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed.
. The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
. The elements are: (1) the institution or continuation of original judicial proceedings; (2) by, or at the instance of the defendant; (3) termination of the proceedings in the defendant’s favor; (4) malice; (5) lack of probable cause; and (6) damage. Farm Serv. Coop. v. Goshen Farms, Inc., 267 Ark. 324, 331-32, 590 S.W.2d 861, 865 (1979).

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