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:
McCAFFREY v. ELLIOTT et al.
No. 6799.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 23, 1933.
S. J. Barco and James M. Carson, both of Miami, Fla., for.appellant.
James E. Calkins, J. N. Morris, John J. Lindsey, Paul D. MeGarry, and John C. Sullivan, all of Miami, Fla., for appellees.
Before BRYAN, POSTER, and SIB-LEY, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
This is a suit brought by the trustee in bankruptcy of the Miami Sign Company, formerly the E. B. Elliott Advertising Company, against its former president, E. B. Elliott, and other officers and certain individuals and corporations, to recover assets of the bankrupt, alleged to have been transferred to them in fraud of creditors, prior to bankruptcy, while the corporation was insolvent. On a former appeal, we reversed a judgment dismissing the bill, and remanded the case for further proceedings. McCaffrey v. Elliott et al. (C. C. A.) 47 F.(2d) 72. The bill is lengthy, occupying, with exhibits, over 40 pages of the printed transcript. It would be impracticable to even briefly state all the allegations of the bill. The bill claimed the restitution of a yacht, the Alwilda, and two lots of ground in Coral Gables. The bill further alleged that the assets of the bankrupt had been used for the organization of the Elliott-Claude Neon Lights, Inc., and later a stock dividend was declared by that company and 1,200 shares were delivered to Elliott and six other named persons. With appropriate allegations of fraud, the return of this property and an accounting were prayed for. On the second trial of the case, the District Court made elaborate findings of facts, reviewing extensively the testimony of a number of witnesses. The claims to the yacht and the lots in Coral Gables were abandoned. The judgment ordered the 1,200 shares of stock in the Elliott-Claude Neon Lights, Ine., which name had been changed to the Claude Neon Southern Corporation, delivered over to the trustee but rejected all other claims, including a claim against the Third National Bank, to set aside a preference, alleged to have resulted from the pledge to that bank of 550 shares of the preferred stock of the E. B. Elliott Advertising Company. This appeal followed.
The assignment of errors is not very helpful. Error is assigned to the judgment generally and to the sustaining of objections to two questions asked a witness, George S. Eeid, on cross-examination, relative to the pledge of the 550 shares of stock to 'the bank. It is apparent that these last two assignments are entirely without merit. The assignments of error do not point out specifically any errors in the findings of facts by the 'District Court. These findings are sufficient to sustain the judgment rendered. An examination of the evidence fails to disclose any substantial errors in the findings. As the hearing was held in open court and the District Judge saw and heai*d the witnesses, we are content to concur in his conclusions.
The record presents no reversible error.
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