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 ex rel. CAREY v. KEEPER OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY PRISON et al.
No. 10974.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 2, 1953.
Decided Feb. 27, 1953.
Plarry R. Back, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Frank P. Lawley, Jr., Asst. Deputy Atty. Gen. of Pa., for appellee.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
BIGGS, Chief Judge.
On December 1, 1952, an order of the court below was filed refusing to issue a writ of habeas corpus in the relator’s, Carey’s, favor, he having been convicted of a capital crime by the Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Jail Delivery of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The relator was sentenced to death and is presently in jail awaiting execution. ' On December 29, 1952, application was made to Chief Judge Kirkpatrick of the court below for a certificate of probable cause and for stay of execution. This application was denied on the same day. On December 30, 1952, a notice of appeal was filed in the court below and on January 6, 1953, an application for a certificate of probable cause and for a stay of execution was made to, and was denied by Judge Maris of this court. On the following day, January 7, 1953, an application for a certificate of probable cause was made to the present writer and to Judge GOODRICH. A certificate of probable cause issued on that date. This court stayed Carey’s execution pending the disposition of the case on appeal. On January 20, 1953, a motion to dismiss the appeal was filed by the State of Pennsylvania. The motion came on for argument in this court on February 2, 1953.
The ground for the motion is based on the failure to comply with Section 2253, Title 28, U.S.C., which in pertinent part reads as follows: “An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding where the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court, unless the justice or judge who rendered the order or a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of probable cause.” Rule 73, FRCP, 28 U.S.C., provides that an appeal must be taken within 30 days.
We have found but two cases in point, viz., United States ex rel. Kreuter v. Baldwin, 7 Cir., 49 F.2d 262, and Ex parte Farrell, 1 Cir., 189 F.2d 540. Both authorities hold that the certificate of probable cause is a necessity in order to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Appeals from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding where the detention arises out of State court process.
The contention of the relator is that since he made application for a certificate of probable cause to Chief Judge Kirkpatrick within thirty days, he had made all reasonable efforts to comply with the provision of Section 2253. We cannot agree.
We note that the relator had but two days in which to procure a certificate of probable cause from a circuit justice or another judge after his application had been denied by. Chief Judge Kirkpatrick. He waited, however, seven days before making any further application. Moreover, the two days remaining to the relator to procure the certificate within the thirty day period did not include a weekend or a holiday. Upon denial of the application by Chief Judge Kirkpatrick, the relator should have made prompt application to members of this court. A certificate could then have been granted within the thirty day period.
In our opinion the issuance of a certificate is a condition precedent to the perfecting of an appeal and the question is one of jurisdiction. The fact that an application was made within the thirty day period is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon a court of appeals under the circumstances at bar. It was plainly the intention of Congress to impose strict limitations upon appeals in habeas corpus cases when the detention was by State process. The policy involved is one for Congress and not for the courts.
We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and that the certificate of probable cause and stay of execution were improvidently granted.
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the stay will be vacated..

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