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:
MacDONALD v. HUDSPETH, Warden.
No. 2351.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 12, 1942.
Gordon E. MacDonald, pro se.
Summerfield S. Alexander and Homer Davis, both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, HUXMAN, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
MURRAH, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment denying discharge in a proceeding in habeas corpus.
The Appellant, herein called petitioner, was indicted in the Western District of Missouri. The indictment contained eleven counts, charging fraudulent use of the mails in violation of Section 215 of the Criminal Code, Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 338. He was removed from Mobile, Alabama to Kansas City, Missouri in February 1939 to answer the charges of the indictment.
Upon his arrival in Kansas City, and before his commitment to the Jackson County jail, he conferred with counsel, a Mr. Rucker of the Kansas City Bar, who had been engaged by a friend of the petitioner. Soon thereafter, he told the United States Attorney, “I have an attorney, he will do all my talking.” While in the Jackson County jail, pending trial in default of bond, he negotiated with at least two other attorneys of the Kansas City Bar, a Mr. Gardner, to whom he paid a fee of $25.00, and a Mr. Nugent. It is not shown that Mr. Gardner performed any legal services for him, but Mr. Nu-gent did present certain matters not here material.
The petitioner had several conferences with the United States Attorney, who gave him a copy of the indictment, and with the Post Office Inspector at Kansas City. After prolonged negotiations between the petitioner, his attorney, and the United States Attorney, he appeared in open court on September 18, 1939, with his counsel, Mr. Rucker. He entered his plea of guilty to each of the eleven counts contained in the indictment and was sentenced to serve a total of ten years in the penitentiary; five years on counts one and two to run consecutively and five years on counts three to eleven to run concurrently with count one. He was duly committed to the Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, to serve the sentence imposed.
Thereafter he applied to the District Court for the District of Kansas for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the various counts of the indictment failed to state an offense; that he lacked mental and physical capacity to understand the import and true meaning of his action in entering his plea of guilty to the several counts of the indictment; that the Post Office Inspector seized, confiscated and retained his private papers and documents without a search warrant; that he was held incommunicado in the Jackson County jail and was thereby prevented from obtaining his release on bail and preparing his defense; that he was induced to enter a plea of guilty by his attorney, Chris H. Rucker, on the representation that the sentence would not exceed two months in addition to the time that he had served in jail.
The Warden filed his answer in -which he admitted the guilty plea, and the sentence, but denied the other facts set up as grounds for discharge. The trial court denied the writ, based partly on ex parte evidence, which this court reversed in Case No. 2263 on authority of Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830, and the proceedings here are supplemental to the former case.
Pursuant to the mandate of this court, a writ of habeas corpus was issued out of the District Court of Kansas, the appellant was removed from the Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, and appeared in person, together with his attorney appointed by the District Court. Witnesses who had been subpoenaed by the petitioner appeared in person, testimony was adduced and the parties were given an opportunity to brief the points involved, pursuant to which the court entered its order from which this appeal is taken.
The trial court found that the petitioner in person and by counsel voluntarily, freely, intelligently and competently entered his plea of guilty to the several counts in the indictment; that he was not held incommunicado in the Jackson County jail; that he was at all times represented by one Chris H. Rucker, an attorney of the Kansas City Bar, who fully advised him of his rights and the nature of the charges against him, appeared and represented petitioner at the time the plea of guilty was entered; that the petitioner was not insane at the time he entered the plea of guilty, but was above the average intelligence and perfectly rational; that he was not influenced or intimidated by his attorney; that he was given full and complete opportunity to be heard by the judge who sentenced him; and that none of his constitutional rights were denied him, either prior to or at the time he entered his plea of guilty.
The record amply supports the findings of the trial court. The indictment clearly charges offenses under Section 215 of the Criminal Code. Title 18 U.S. C.A. § 338. The trial court properly denied the writ.
Petitioner also complains in his supplemental petition for habeas corpus that the trial court was biased and prejudiced against him, and that he did not receive a fair trial.
No statutory affidavit was filed but petitioner stated at the hearing that he did not have sufficient time to meet the statutory requirements. The trial court made inquiry concerning the grounds for his disqualifications, in answer to which the petitioner stated that the trial judge was biased and prejudiced against the petitioner because he had formerly on August 27, 1940 denied the petitioner’s application for a writ without affording him an opportunity to appear in person to testify in his own behalf.
It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in the record, or which can be inferred from the record, or in statements made by the petitioner, that the trial court was disqualified to try the issues presented. The contentions of the petitioner in this respect are utterly without merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
No written opinion.

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