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:
In re BAY PARKWAY HABERDASHERS & HATTERS, Inc. WILLIAM CARTER CO. v. CULLEN.
No. 278.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 19, 1934.
Cohen & Wedeen, of New York City (Sidney Wedeen, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Jacob Frummer, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellee.
Before MANTON, L. HAND and SWAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant and other creditors, with claims aggregating $1,319.64, voted for Albert L. Olsen as trustee for the bankrupt. Throe claims aggregating $855.36 voted for Thomas H. Cullen, Jr. (the receiver), and the referee appointed him trastee, stating that he declined to certify Mr. Olsen elected trastee because of a disapproval based upon the fact that Mr. Olsen’s election was controlled by the assignee’s attorneys. Cohen & Wedeen, attorneys in fact for the creditors who voted for Mr. Olsen, were also the attorneys for the assignee for the benefit of creditors. The assignee had no assets in his possession; the proceeds of the sale having been paid directly to the receiver.
Nothing in the record supports the eonelusion of the referee that Olsem was controlled by the assignee’s attorneys. By placing their claims in the hands of the attorneys for the assignee, the creditors did not thereby disqualify themselves from voting for the tras-tee. Olsen, who was nominated and voted for by the majority m number and amount of creditors, was not the assignee. The ret-eree stated that he declined “to approve any candidate whose selection the assignee or his attorneys controlled.” Section 44 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA § 72) provides for the appointment of one or three trustees by creditors. General Order 13 (11 USCA § 53) provides that “the appointment of a trustee by the creditors shall he subject to be approved or disapproved, and he shall_be removable, by the referee or by the judge.’ But by statute the unqualified right to appoint trustees m bankruptcy vests in the creditors. In re Harris Construction Co. (D. C.) 37 F.(2d) 951; In re Van De Mark (D. C.) 175 F. 287; In re Malino (D. C.) 118 F. 368. Disapproval or removal must be based upon the exercise of wise judicial discretion. There must be reason for disapproval or removal. In re Mayflower Hat ,Co., 65 F. (2d) 330 (C. C. A. 2). Insufficient reason existed here for refusing the appointment of Olsen as trustee.
n Order reversed.

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

Choices:

Answer: 1