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:
The UNITED STATES v. Philip Henry OLECK and David Bedell. Appeal of David BEDELL.
No. 89-3461.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 10, 1989.
Decided Jan. 25, 1990.
David Bedell, Elgin, Fla., pro se.
Paul J. Brysh, Asst. U.S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before BECKER, GREENBERG and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
This appeal presents the same question as that posed in the companion case, United States v. Gozlon-Peretz, 894 F.2d 1402 i.e. whether the district court had authority to impose a term of supervised release for a sentence imposed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) for an offense committed after October 27, 1986, the date of enactment of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (ADAA), but before November 1, 1987, the effective date of ADAA section 1004. Appellant David Bedell was convicted under § 841(b)(1)(B) for an offense committed on July 1, 1987. He was sentenced on December 8, 1987, to a term of five years of imprisonment, followed by four years of supervised release. Bedell argues that neither special parole nor supervised release was available for offenses committed on that date.
Bedell differs from appellant Gozlon-Peretz in that Gozlon-Peretz was convicted under § 841(b)(1)(A), not § 841(b)(1)(B). This difference could be seen as crucial because the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, Pub.L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837, 1976 (1984) (“the Act”), apparently inadvertently, left out both special parole and supervised release for the newly created § 841(b)(1)(A) offenses. Bedell was sentenced under § 841(b)(1)(B), which contained a special parole term. Thus, as the fourth, fifth, and eleventh circuits have done, see United States v. Byrd, 837 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir.1988), United States v. Whitehead, 849 F.2d 849, 860 (4th Cir.1988), and United States v. Smith, 840 F.2d 886 (11th Cir.1988), we could rule that because special parole was available in § 841(b)(1)(B), and because it is not clear when Congress meant the ADAA amendments to the Act to go into effect, Bedell should be sentenced to a special parole term. However, for the reasons set forth in Gozlon-Peretz, we believe that the correct reading of the ADAA is that supervised release replaced special parole in §§ 841(b)(1)(A), (B) and (C) as of the date of the ADAA’s enactment, October 27, 1986. Therefore, we hold that supervised release was the proper sentence. The government, after a change of position, apparently agrees with that result in this case.
The judgment of sentence will be affirmed.
. Section 1002 of the ADAA replaced old §§ 841(b)(1)(A), (B) and (C) with new provisions that included supervised release terms, not special parole terms. 100 Stat. 3207-2 to 3207-4 (1986). Section 1004(a) of the ADAA substituted "supervised release” for all remaining "special parole” offenses. Section 1004(b) explicitly linked section 1004's effective date to the effective date of the Sentencing Reform Act, November 1, 1987. See 100 Stat. at 3207-6.
. Appellant contends that he should be treated as having violated § 841(b)(1)(A) because he was charged with distribution of over 500 grams of cocaine. Section 841(b)(1)(A) carries a higher penalty. However, we can decide the case only on the basis of the charge in the indictment. Bedell can hardly complain that he was charged with an offense that carries a lesser penalty.
. The § 841(b)(1)(B) under which Bedell was sentenced was the exact same provision as the “old” (pre-Act) § 841(b)(1)(A). The Act redesig-nated old §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and (B) as new §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and (C), respectively. 98 Stat. at 2068.

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