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 v. Roosevelt SCARBOROUGH, Jr., Appellant. UNITED STATES of America v. Jose DIXON, Appellant.
Nos. 24430, 24431.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Sept. 15, 1971.
Decided Nov. 4, 1971.
Mr. Anton M. Weiss (appointed by this court) for appellant in No. 24,430.
Mr. Walter W. Woodside (appointed by this court) filed a brief for appellant in No. 24,431.
Mr. James F. Flanagan, Asst. U. S. Atty. with whom Messrs. Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty. and John A. Terry and John G. Gill, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before MacKINNON and WILKEY, Circuit Judgeg) and G0URLEY, Senior Digtrict Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(d) (1964).
MacKINNON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Scarborough here questions the impeachment of one of his alibi witnesses through the use of a prior forgery conviction. The witness secured her final release from probation approximately ten years and four months prior to the date the past conviction was used to impeach her testimony. At the time of the trial, there was no time limit, statutory or otherwise, on the use of prior convictions for such purposes and the admissibility of the evidence was within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Luck v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 348 F.2d 763 (1965).
Since the trial, Congress has enacted D.C.Code § 14-305(b) (2) (B) (ii) (Supp. IV, 1971), which provides that prior convictions shall not be used to impeach a witness where the expiration of the witness’s period of probation occurred more than ten years before the trial in which he is sought to be impeached. Therefore, if the instant case were retried, the forgery conviction could not be used, because the ten-year limitation has been slightly exceeded. However, since the new statutory rule was not in effect at the time of the trial, the question was within the broad diseretion of the trial judge. Luck v. United States, supra. In view of the close relevancy between a prior forgery conviction and a witness’s credibility, we do not believe that the trial judge abused his discretion here by permitting use of such conviction. See Davis v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 167, 170-171, 409 F.2d 453, 456-457 (1967). The lapse of time since the witness committed the prior offense is a matter which goes to her credibility and as such is within the domain of the jury to consider in determining the weight they would give to such evidence. Thus we find that the trial in this respect was without error.
Affirmed.
. We see no merit in appellants’ attack on the trial judge’s impartial references in liis jury instructions to facts which were clearly not in dispute. Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 53 S.Ct. 698, 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1933). See Lyons v. United States, 325 F.2d 370, 375 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 969, 84 S.Ct. 1650, 12 L.Ed.2d 738 (1964) ; United States v. Jonikas, 197 F.2d 675, 679 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 877, 73 S.Ct. 171, 97 L.Ed. 679 (1952).
. D.C.Code § 14-305 (b) (2) (B) (ii) provides :
(B) In addition, no evidence of any conviction of a witness is admissible under this section if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the later of * * * (ii) the expiration of the period of his parole, probation, or sentence granted or imposed with respect to his most recent conviction of any criminal offense.
. Carp v. California-Western States Life Ins. Co., 252 F.2d 337, 344 (5th Cir. 1958) (Credibility of witness is for jury determination — it is peculiarly within its domain) ; Baker v. Pinkston, 314 F.2d 379, 381-382 (7th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, Baker v. Lane, 380 U.S. 958, 85 S.Ct. 1098, 13 L.Ed.2d 975 (1965) (Determination of matters of credibility of witnesses, weight to be given items of evidence, and resolution of conflicting testimony are within exclusive province of jury) ; Mascarenas v. Johnson, 280 F.2d 49, 51 (5th Cir. 1960) (Credibility is within the exclusive province of the jury) ; Hawk v. Olson, 326 U.S. 271, 279, 66 S.Ct. 116, 90 L.Ed. 61 (1945) (The determination of credibility is for the trier of fact).

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