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 "fiduciaries". 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:
FIRST NAT. BANK OF WACO et al. v. SHEEHY. In re SOUTH BROS. TRUNK CO.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 27, 1928.
No. 5331.
Allan D. Sanford and H. M. Richey, both of Waco, Tex., for appellants.
W. W. Naman, of Waco, Tex. (Spell, Naman & Penland, of Waco, Tex., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing denied January 12, 1929.
BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
The District Judge affirmed orders of the referee in bankruptcy which required the appellant banks to pay certain bank deposits over to the trustee in bankruptcy. The banks take the position on this appeal that they had the right to credit the deposits on notes which they held against the bankrupt
On September 17, 1926, the South Bros. Trunk Company had a deposit of $15 in the First National Bank of Waco, Tex., and owed that bank $17,500 on notes. On the same date the trunk company had a deposit of $4,489.06 in the Citizens’ National Bank of Waco, and owed that bank $10,000 on notes. At that time the trunk company was insolvent, and its stockholders turned its assets and the management of its affairs over to' a- committee, with authority to dispose of such assets as were necessary to pay its debts. The presidents of the twtf banks were stockholders of the trunk company, and they became chairman and treasurer, respectively, of this committee. The banks themselves and other principal creditors joined with the committee in sending out letters requesting the co-operation of the remaining creditors. The committee took eharge of the trunk company’s bank accounts, and transferred its bank deposits to the credit of the committee, in the name of the president of the Citizens’ National Bank for the account of the trunk company. The deposits in the banks were thereafter made to the credit of the committee, and were increased by collections to such an extent that, when the petition in bankruptcy was filed against the trunk company the deposits amounted to $5,760.66 in the First National Bank, and to $5,396.22 in the Citizens’ National Bank. In the meantime the notes held by the banks had not been reduced. When bankruptcy intervened, each of the banks credited the notes it held with the amount on deposit.
Section 68 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA § 108) authorizes mutual debts or credits between the estate of the bankrupt and the creditors to be set off, and the balances to be allowed or paid. We are of opinion that the relation of debtor and creditor wMch ordinarily exists between banks and their depositors was so changed by the participation of the banks in the plan of the committee as to make the deposits a trust fund for the benefit, not only of the trunk company, but of all its creditors as well. Upon the creation of the committee the deposits no longer remained subject to cheek by the trunk company, but by agreement were turned over to the committee and placed to its credit. The banks waived their banker’s liens on deposits to the credit of the trunk company, by agreeing to the transfer of those deposits to the credit of the committee. To allow the banks afterwards to take credit, as against the trunk company, on their notes, would be to uphold a violation of the agreement under which all deposits were held in trust. May v. Henderson, 268 U. S. 111, 116, 45 S. Ct. 456, 69 L. Ed. 870; Merrimack Nat. Bank v. Bailey (C. C. A.) 289 F. 468; Wagner v. Citizens’ Bank, 122 Tenn. 164, 122 S. W. 245, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 484, 135 Am. St. Rep. 869, 19 Ann. Cas. 483.
The order appealed from is affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1