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.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case. 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:
Althea CURRY, Administratrix of the Estate of Leslie Curry, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. Mrs. Mildred Wattigny OTT, Executrix of the Estate of Melvin T. Ott, Deceased, Appellee.
No. 20065.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 20, 1963.
Jason H. Floyd, J. Boyce Holleman, Gulfport, Miss., Floyd & Holleman, Gulf-port, Miss., of counsel, for appellants.
P. D. Greaves, Gulfport, Miss., Walter J. Phillips, Bay St. Louis, Miss., for ap-pellee.
Before PHILLIPS, WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.
Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
This case arose out of a head-on collision between automobiles driven by Leslie Curry and Melvin T. Ott. Both drivers were killed. Mrs. Curry sued Mrs. Ott, Executrix of Ott’s Estate, for the wrongful death of her husband. Mississippi recognizes the doctrine of comparative negligence. The case was tried in the district court without a jury. There were no eye-witnesses. The evidence showed that the left wheels of Curry’s automobile were at least two and a half feet across the center line on Ott’s side of the highway. After the plaintiff rested, the trial judge sustained the defendant’s motion “to exclude evidence,” dismissed the complaint, and granted judgment for the defendant.
This Court has considered the briefs and argument and carefully reviewed the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. We hold that the trial judge gave full effect to Mississippi law and that the evidence supports his finding that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of Melvin Ott which caused or contributed to the accident. The judgment is
Affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 99