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:
Henry C. WILSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 19675.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued March 14, 1966.
Decided Aug. 3, 1966.
Wilbur K. Miller, Senior Circuit Judge, dissented.
Mr. Norman M. Garland, Washington, D. C., (appointed by this court) for appellant.
Mr. Henry J. Monahan, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Wilbur K. Miller, Senior Circuit Judge, and Danaher, Circuit Judge.
DANAHER, Circuit Judge:
In the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions this appellant was convicted of narcotics vagrancy under D.C. Code § 33-416a(b) (1) (B) (1961), which applies to any “vagrant” as defined in the Act who
“is found in any place, abode, house, shed, dwelling, building, structure, vehicle, conveyance, or boat, in which any illicit narcotic drugs are kept, found, used, or dispensed.”
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed after noting that Wilson’s “principal thesis here is that the Narcotic Vagrancy statute is unconstitutional.” We granted the appellant’s petition for allowance of an appeal.
The Government tells us:
“In the opinion of appellee, the following question is presented:
“Whether 33 D.C.C. § 416a (i), as construed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, denied appellant due process of law under the Fifth Amendment?”
Despite the Government’s submission of the question in that form, we need not reach the issue of constitutionality. Subsection 416a(i) provides:
“(i) In all prosecutions under the provisions of this section [33-416a], the burden of proof shall be upon the defendant to show that he has lawful employment or has lawful means of support realized from a lawful occupation or source.” (Emphasis added.)
Our study of the record discloses that there was no issue respecting Wilson’s “lawful employment.” There was no inquiry as to whether or not he “has lawful means of support realized from a lawful occupation or source.” Neither of these alternatives seems to have been involved in the information filed in the trial court. There the Government had charged and had offered evidence only to show that on October 19, 1964, this appellant had been “found” in a “vehicle” in which “illicit” narcotic drugs were “kept, found, used, or dispensed.” The language of the subsection in question, set forth above, unlike subsection (A) or subsection (C) of section 416a, for example, does not specify that conviction may follow if the vagrant defined in section 416a(b) (1) “fails to give a good account of himself.” We can not assume that the omission of such language was other than purposeful, and certainly the record here discloses no proper foundation for an application of subsection 416a(i), supra.
The evidence of record discloses that officers attached to the Narcotics Squad approached an automobile in the early afternoon of October 19, 1964. Three men were in the front seat while in the rear seat was the appellant with one Gar-nett (who was not arrested). Officers asked the driver for his permit, which was produced. They asked the owner of the car, also in the front seat, for the car registration, which according to the testimony, was thereupon removed from the glove compartment. An officer testified he then could see paraphernalia of a type utilized by narcotics users. The police next searched the car and found “in the space behind the rear seat” a needle, a bottle-cap cooker and an eyedropper syringe.
The appellant testified that he had left the Court of General Sessions on the morning of the 19th before or around noontime. He had been picked up by his friends who were to give him a ride back to his home in northeast Washington. They were waiting to have repairs made to the speedometer when the officers approached the car. Wilson admitted that he had twice been convicted of violations of the Harrison Narcotics Act but he testified that he knew nothing about and had not seen the various items said to have been narcotics paraphernalia.
We fail to perceive any issue deriving from this appellant’s mere presence as a passenger in the back seat of the car which gives rise to placing upon him a burden of proof within the meaning of D.C.Code § 33-416a(i), supra.
Reversed.
. Wilson v. United States, 212 A.2d 805, 806 (D.C.App.1965).
. In a prosecution under D.C.Code § 22-3302 (1961), the District of Columbia Vagrancy Act, we stated that the words not giving “a good account of himself” mean “not giving a good account when a question has been followed up by an order or demand. Since appellant was never confronted with an order or demand to explain her presence in the street, her conviction must be reversed.” Beail v. District of Columbia, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 110, 111, 201 F.2d 176, 177 (1952). Cf. Freeman v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 213, 214, 322 F.2d 426, 427 (1963).

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