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:
Jesse L. BARNES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. James F. SMITH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Nos. 20373, 20374.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 20, 1967.
Decided June 15, 1967.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc in No. 20373 Denied Sept. 15, 1967.
Mr. Ben Ivan Melnicoff, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant in No. 20,373.
Mr. Marvin J. Sonosky, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant in No. 20,374. Mr. John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, Wilbur K. Miller, Senior Circuit Judge, and Burger, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
. This is an appeal from conviction of Smith for rape and Barnes for rape and aiding and abetting rape. The details brought out by the long trial are too .unspeakable to recite except to the extent required. It is sufficient to say that the Government’s case showed that the complaining witness, a 16 year old girl, was forcibly seized at 9:30 at night, taken to a garage, then to an apartment, then back to the garage, then to a car, and finally back to the garage. She was forcibly detained from 9:30 p. m. until 7:30 a. m. and during that interval she was beaten, tortured and sexually assaulted repeatedly by an unknown number of males, and unknown number of times. She testified she was conscious during most of this period but at times feigned otherwise. She testified that it was Barnes who first seized and took her to the garage and that he assaulted her various times in the ensuing 10 hours. She further testified that Smith and three defendants who were acquitted, Harrington, Jackson and Williams, also assaulted her.
On appeal Appellants contend the District Court erred (a) in permitting joinder of the defendants in one indictment; (b) in failing to sever the cases; and (c) in allowing the conviction against Barnes for aiding and abetting Smith to stand, absent evidence that Barnes was present when Smith committed the rape.
The trial covered a period of approximately one month and many witnesses were called; the jury deliberated 3% days. The nightmarish and shocking episodes described in the record represent a continuous sequence covering the entire night and a concert of activity by multiple participants. Verdicts of not guilty as to three defendants after prolonged deliberation suggest both care and a discriminating evaluation of the evidence.
Joinder of the defendants in the same indictment was clearly proper under Fed.R.CRIM.P. 8. The decision to deny severance was one calling for the sound judicial discretion of the Trial Judge, Fed.R.CRIM.P. 14, and on this record there is no basis for holding that discretion was abused. Inevitably, an alleged mob-like action exposes the participants to the likelihood of a common trial. That the careful instructions of the Trial Judge to view the evidence separately as to each defendant were heeded by the jury is indicated in the acquittal of three defendants in the face of very strong evidence against them. The jury was plainly able to separate the evidence against Barnes and Smith from that against the other defendants in order to conclude that the Government’s case did not persuade them beyond reasonable doubt that these three were also guilty.
It was not essential that Barnes be physically present in order to make him an aider and abettor of Smith; there was evidence that Barnes had forcibly abducted the girl from a public street in the early evening and his conduct from 9:30 onward was such that the jury could reasonably conclude it was in aid of Smith and others. Moreover, Barnes’ sentences on the two counts are concurrent. Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943).
If any miscarriage of justice or error can be gleaned from this record, it is surely not in the judgments against these Appellants.
Affirmed.
BAZELON, Chief Judge, concurs in the result.

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