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, Appellee, v. Harry Duane SHEETS, Appellant.
No. 20453.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
June 8, 1971.
Richard J. Bruckner, Omaha, Neb., made argument for appellant.
Richard A. Dier, U. S. Atty., Dilworth A. Nebker, John A. Gale, Asst. U. S. Attys., Omaha, Neb., made argument for appellee.
Before ALDRICH LAY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Of the First Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Harry Duane Sheets, appeals his conviction on six counts of securities fraud under 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 77q(a) and 77x, two counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 and one count of conspiracy to violate the above statutes under 18 U.S.C.A. § 371. He received a two year sentence of imprisonment on each of the six counts of securities fraud, the sentences to run concurrently, and an additional two year concurrent sentence on each of the other counts. The latter sentence, which is to run consecutive to the sentence under the securities counts, was suspended and the defendant placed on probation for three years on the expiration of the sentence under the first six counts.
Defendant primarily attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction under the various counts. Sheets was convicted of defrauding several investors by selling to them fractional working interests in oil wells located in the State of Nebraska. He formed the Mid-Continent Oil Company and employed salesmen to solicit monies for drilling wells on the various leases. A total of $178,329.12 was invested in these fractional interests from August 1965 thru July 1967. Meager royalty payments from only one well were ever returned to the investors. The defendant sold substantial interests in two wells which were never drilled. The defendant and his salesmen generally represented that drilling in these wells would commence immediately although the money previously invested to drill these wells had already been fully dissipated thus making further operations impossible. The record is replete with misrepresentations and “lulling” of investors by the defendant and his salesmen in the promotion of the drilling leases. In review of the entire record we are satisfied there is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction under each of the counts. See United States v. Porter, 441 F.2d 1204 (8 Cir., filed April 29, 1971), United States v. Prionas, 438 F. 2d 1049 (8 Cir. 1971).
Judgment affirmed.
. Defendant also claims he was denied the right of confrontation of witnesses by the testimony of an employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission that he began his investigation of Sheets due to the receipt of letters from the Securities Commissioner in the State of Nebraska and an investor. No objection was made to this testimony at the time. Notwithstanding this deficiency of the record, it cannot be said that the testimony was in any way prejudicial nor does it rise to a constitutional infirmity as defendant suggests. The testimony contained “no express assertion about past fact” which in any way incriminated the defendant. Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 88, 91 S.Ct. 210, 219, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970). Sheets’ other complaint is that he was denied due process since his co-defendant, one of his salesmen charged as a co-conspirator, received only probation in contrast to his sentence of imprisonment. Disparity of sentence between two defendants, absent a showing of abuse of discretion, is not a proper ground for appellate review. DeRosier v. United States, 407 F.2d 959 (8 Cir. 1969); Jones v. United States, 396 F.2d 66 (8 Cir. 1968) cert. denied 393 U.S. 1057, 89 S.Ct. 695, 21 L.Ed.2d 697 (1969).

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