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:
In re CHAMPION TOOL CO. Petition of GOLD.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
February 2, 1925.)
No. 143.
Bankruptcy ©=>237 — Witness required to appear before referee as special commissioner in other state and district, but at place within 100 miles of residence.
Under Rev. St. §'876 (Comp. St. § 1487), witness must obey an order by federal District Court to appear before a referee in bankruptcy as special commissioner for examination, under Bankruptcy Act, § 21a (Comp. St. § 9605), at a place within 100 miles of bis residence, but in another state and district; section 41a (Comp. St. § 9625) merely limiting the authority of the referee as such to require attendance of witness.
Petition to Revise Order of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
In the matter of the Champion Tool Company, bankrupt. Herman Gold was adjudged in contempt for failure to obey subpoena of the District Court, and he petitions to revise.
Petition dismissed, and order affirmed.
Max Roekmore, of New York City, for petitioner.
David W. Kahn, of New York City, for respondent.
Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and HAND, Circuit Judges.
HAND, Circuit Judge.
The respondent, Ehrbom, was appointed on March 10, 1924, ancillary receiver in bankruptcy of the Champion Tool Company by order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 15, .1924, he applied to that court for an order directing the petitioner to appear for examination under section 21a of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9605) before one of the referees in bankruptcy as special commissioner. The order was granted, and the clerk directed to issue a subpoena to secure his attendance. The clerk issued the subpoena, and it was served upon him in the city of Newark, N. J., and therefore outside the Southern district of New York, though within 100 miles of the place where he lived. Deeming the subpoena invalid, he refused to obey it, and the receiver thereupon aqqdiod to the court for an order adjudging him in contempt. The District Court so hold, and it is this order which the petition seeks to revise.
The petitioner relies upon the proviso to section 41a of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9625), which reads as follows: “No person shall bo required to attend as a witness before a referee at a place outside of the state o f his residence, and more than one hundred miles from such place of residence.” The respondent, on the other hand, relies upon section 876 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 1487), under which in civil causes witnesses may be subpoenaed outside of the district, provided they do not 'live more than 100 miles from the place where the court is held. •
The question is a formal one and depends upon the meaning of section 21a, which allows “a court of bankruptcy” to require any one “to appear in court or before a referee or the judge of any state court” for examination. The referee, by section la (7), being Comp. St. § 9585, may be a court of bankruptcy, but only, we think, when he acts as referee. There can be no doubt that, if the order had required the petitioner to appear before the District Judge in person, the subpoena would have been good under section 876 of the Revised Statutes, and we will assume, without deciding, that the proviso to section 41a was correctly interpreted in Re Hemsfreet (D. C.) 117 F. 568, and Re Cole (D. C.) 133 F. 414, and that the referee could not have called him from outside the Southern district of New York.
Nevertheless we adhere to the established conception of a special commissioner, as directly representing the court and as acting merely as its immediate delegate. The distinction between such commissioners and referees in bankruptcy is of long standing, and we should he unwilling to confuse the law by extending the word “referee,” in section 41a, beyond its conventional limitation.
The petition is dismissed, and the order 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