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:
DAUER v. UNITED STATES.
No. 4586.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
April 28, 1953.
Rehearing Denied May 26, 1953.
Joseph Lewis, Los Angeles, Cal., was on the brief, for appellant.
Eugene W. Davis, U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., and V. J. Bowersock, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wichita, Kan., on the brief, for ap-pellee.
Before BRATTON, HUXMAN, and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.
BRATTON, Circuit Judge.
The indictment in this case contained two counts. The first count charged that John Henry Dauer and Avington Rayborn Hutchins transported a kidnapped person in interstate commerce; and the second count charged that such persons transported in interstate commerce a stolen automobile, knowing it to have been stolen. Both defendants were found guilty. A new trial was granted as to Hutchins. Dauer was sentenced to imprisonment; the judgment was affirmed, 10 Cir., 189 F.2d 343; and certiorari was denied 342 U.S. 898, 72 S. Ct. 232, 96 L.Ed. 672. Dauer filed in the case a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment. The motion was drawn under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. And he filed a separate motion for his production in court upon the hearing on the motion to vacate, and set aside the judgment. An order was entered, denying both motion's. The appeal is from that part of the order denying the motion to vacate and set aside the judgment.
One ground of the motion to vacate and set aside the judgment was error on the part of the court in refusing to grant the defendant Dauer a severance and separate trial. Another ground was that the court erred in refusing to compel the attendance of three witnesses at the trial and in denying a motion for continuance for the purpose of securing the attendance of such witnesses. A third ground was that the court erred in admitting certain evidence and in failing to instruct the jury that while such evidence was admissible as against the defendant Hutchins, it was hearsay as to the defendant Dauer and therefore could not be considered as against him. And the remaining ground was that the United States Attorney made certain improper and prejudicial statements or remarks in the course of his argument to the jury. Manifestly, these asserted errors relate only to-procedural matters in a case of which the court had jurisdiction, and they cannot be reviewed on motion to vacate and set aside the judgment. They were open to review only-on appeal from the judgment. And all-of such grounds of attack were urged without avail on the appeal from the judgment.
Error is predicated upon the action of the court in denying the motion for the production of the defendant at the hearing on the motion to vacate and set aside the judgment. Whether the prisoner should be produced at the hearing on a motion to-vacate and set aside the judgment depends-upon the issues raised in the particular case. Where substantial issues of fact are presented respecting events in which the prisoner participated, the trial court should require his production at the hearing. United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 223, 72 S. Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232; Wheatley v. United States, 10 Cir., 198 F.2d 325. But the court may entertain and determine the motion without the presence of the prisoner where-the motion or the records and files in the-case show conclusively that he is not entitled to any relief, or where only issues of law are presented. Barrett v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 180 F.2d 510, 20 A.L.R.2d 965, certi-orari denied 340 U.S. 897, 71 S.Ct. 234, 95 L.Ed. 650. Here, it appeared conclusively from the motion and records and files in the case that the defendant Dauer was not entitled to any relief on the grounds pleaded in the motion. Therefore, refusing to require his production at the hearing upon such motion did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
The order denying the motion to vacate and set aside the judgment is 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: 1