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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin PRECIADO-CORDOBAS, Carlos Escobar-Escobar, Luis Miguel Ariza-Sierra, Mario Alberto Guzman-Angarita, Defendants-Appellants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Miguel ARIZA-SIERRA, Martin Preciado Cordobas, and Carlos Escobar, Defendants-Appellants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Alberto GUZMAN-ANGARITA, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 88-5276, 89-5134 and 89-5138.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 1, 1991.
Milton Hirsch, Hal Kessler, Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellants.
Dexter W. Lehtinen, U.S. Atty., Phillip DiRosa, Linda C. Hertz, Mayra R. Lichter, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, Circuit Judge, and HOFFMAN , Senior District Judge.
Honorable Walter E. Hoffman, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
The appellants were convicted of possession with intent to distribute at least 1000 kilograms of marijuana aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(a) (1988) and 18 U.S.C. App. § 2 (1988), and conspiracy to commit the substantive act above, in violation of 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(j). As one ground for reversal, appellants cite a violation of the Court Reporter’s Act: at trial, the court reporter failed to record counsels’ closing arguments. Consequently, their new, court-appointed appellate counsel cannot determine whether reversible error occurred during that phase of the trial. They contend that this violation of the Act requires us to reverse their convictions and order a new trial, pursuant to United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir.1977) {Selva 7/).
In Selva II, we held that when a substantial and significant portion of the record is missing and the appellant is represented on appeal by counsel not involved at trial, the appellant’s right to appeal is rendered illusory and we must remand the case for a new trial. Selva II, 559 F.2d at 1305-06. The holding in Selva II, however, was premised on the district court’s inability to reconstruct the record. Indeed, in United States v. Selva, 546 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir.1977) (Selva I), we, while retaining jurisdiction over the appeal, remanded the case on our own initiative, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e), so that the district court could “conduct an appropriate hearing ... for the purpose of supplementing the record, if possible, to disclose what transpired during the closing arguments at trial.” Selva I, 546 F.2d at 1174. It was only after the district court conducted such a hearing and concluded that it was not possible to reconstruct a substantially verbatim account of the final arguments and that a new trial was not needed to further the interests of justice that we decided Selva II. Selva II, 559 F.2d at 1305.
In the present case, as in Selva I, no hearing has ever been held at which the district court has been asked to supplement the record as to the closing arguments. We then must follow the procedure mandated by Selva I. Therefore,
[wjhile retaining jurisdiction in this case, we, on our own initiative pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e), remand this case to the district court to conduct an appropriate hearing at the earliest convenient date for the purpose of supplementing the record, if possible, to disclose what transpired during the closing arguments at trial. In his attempt to reconstruct the record, the district judge may use his notes, the [court] reporter’s notes, and, of course, the testimony of witnesses, including the appellants’] trial attorney[s].
Selva I, 546 F.2d at 1174 (footnote omitted). After the district court has conducted such a hearing, it shall transmit forthwith to this court a transcript of the hearing and its order reconstructing the record or explaining why the same cannot be done.
REMANDED.
. The Act states, in relevant part:
Each session of the court and every other proceeding designated by rule or order of the court or by one of the judges shall be recorded verbatim by shorthand, mechanical means, electronic sound recording, or any other method, subject to regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference and subject to the discretion and approval of the judge.... Proceedings to be recorded under this section include (1) all proceedings in criminal cases had in open court....
28 U.S.C. § 753(b) (1988).
. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981.
.Fed R.App.P. 10(e) states:
If any difference arises as to whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court, the difference shall be submitted to and settled by that court and the record made to conform to the truth. If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated therein, the parties by stipulation, or the district court, either before or after the record is transmitted to the court of appeals, or the court of appeals, on proper suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. All other questions as to the form and content of the record shall be presented to the court of appeals.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 4