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:
Edward L. YOUNG, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 17268.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Nov. 4, 1968.
Decided Dec. 30, 1968.
Joseph A. Steedle, Ryan & Bowser, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Stanley W. Greenfield, First Asst. U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee (Gustave Diamond, U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief).
Before KALODNER, FORMAN and STAHL, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, denying without a hearing appellant Young’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or set aside his sentence.
Young and a co-defendant, Charles Ptomey, entered pleas of guilty to a federal bank robbery indictment on October 1, 1964. Prior to sentence they made two attempts to withdraw their pleas. Both were denied by the District Court after hearing. In denying the second motion, the District Court found that the guilty pleas of Young and Ptomey were “entered understandingly and with the information and advice of counsel, and with full knowledge of the maximum penalty which could be imposed by the sentencing court,” and that they “acted voluntarily without any influences or inducements or promises and without any fear or coercion.” 244 F.Supp. 464, 468 (W.D.Pa.1965). In affirming at 366 F. 2d 759 (1966) we stated (p. 760):
“The trial judge painstakingly reviewed the testimony and searched the record before him to see whether there was anything which would indicate that the defendants were misled or coerced or that their pleas were not freely and understandingly entered and found nothing. We find nothing.” (emphasis supplied)
The instant motion raises no contentions as to the voluntariness of Young’s guilty plea that are not foreclosed by our prior opinion. Moreover, as we there stated, such a plea is a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses. Therefore, since the voluntariness of Young’s plea remains unimpeached, his contentions as to the preplea conduct of his counsel and federal agents are of no consequence.
Young complains that the conduct of his counsel at the hearing of his first motion to withdraw his plea deprived him of his right to effective counsel. His complaint is two-fold: (1) his attorney also represented the co-defendant Ptomey without requesting or obtaining Young’s permission to do so; and (2) his attorney cross-examined him as to the voluntariness of his plea and made “self-serving” statements as to the advice he had given him. However, accepting as true all of Young’s allegations except those that are purely conclusory, he is not entitled to relief. Moreover, even assuming that Young was denied his right to effective counsel at the first hearing, any such error was cured when Young was represented by other counsel at the hearing on his second motion to withdraw his plea.
The Order of the District Court will be affirmed.

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