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:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Appellee, v. Lyman GRANT, Appellant. Lyman Eugene GRANT, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and Greene County Superior Court, Snow Hill, North Carolina, Appellee.
Nos. 71-1628, 71-1767.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Jan. 7, 1972.
J. Harvey Turner, Kinston, N. C., on brief for appellant Lyman Grant.
J. Harvey Turner and C. E. Gerrans, Kinston, N. C., on brief for appellant Lyman Eugene Grant, Jr.
Before BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRYAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lyman Grant, appellant in No. 71-1628, and his son, Lyman Eugene Grant, Jr., appellant in No. 71-1767, sought to remove certain criminal prosecutions from the state to the federal courts under the Civil Rights Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1443. The issues presented in these appeals are the same and the cases will be considered together. Appellants now contend that the district court erred in remanding these prosecutions to the state court without holding an evidentiary hearing.
No. 71-1628
On January 11, 1971, the Grand Jury of the Superior Court of Lenoir County, North Carolina, returned nine separate indictments charging the appellant, Lyman Grant, with larceny. On March 15, 1971, Grant filed a petition in the federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 seeking the removal of the criminal proceedings from the state court to the district court. On May 18, 1971, the State of North Carolina filed a Motion To Remand. The district court, without a hearing, remanded the ease to the state court on May 20, 1971.
In his removal petition Grant alleges that:
(1) When he entered pleas of not guilty to indictments charging him with receiving stolen goods, the solicitor moved the court to amend the warrant to charge him with larceny;
(2) The prosecutions are politically motivated by the Sheriff of Lenoir County and tentative witnesses of the state in these cases have been promised certain rewards;
(3) The Sheriff made statements during a political campaign to the effect that he was going to “closeup” his (Grant’s) business; and
(4) There has been an undue amount of adverse publicity by local radio and newspapers.
No. 71-1767
Lyman Eugene Grant, Jr., was .charged in the Greene County, North Carolina, Superior Court with First Degree Burglary, Armed Robbery and Kidnapping in April of 1971. On June 21, 1971, Grant filed a petition in the federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 seeking the removal of the criminal proceedings against him from the state court to the district court. On the same day the State of North Carolina filed a Motion for Remand. The district court, without a hearing’ remanded the case to the state court on July 9,1971.
In his removal petition Grant, Jr., alleges :
(1) That a Deputy Sheriff of Greene County is using the charges against Petitioner in an effort to be elected as Sheriff of said county;
(2) That the description of those purporting to have committed the crime with which Petitioner is charged does not fit this Petitioner;
(3) That the State of North Carolina has refused to produce at Petitioner’s demand all evidence in its possession or knowledge favorable to Petitioner;
(4) That the Petitioner does not know whether or not the State will put him on trial for his life;
(5) That the Clerk of the Superior Court of Greene County refused to accept Petitioner’s appearance bond on his petition for writ of habeas corpus without the same being secured by a first deed of trust;
(6) That Petitioner has been subjected to harassment while in jail; and
(7) That the Assistant Solicitor improperly caused subpoenas to be issued to possible defense witnesses.
For the purposes of this appeal, the separate allegations contained in each removal petition must be taken as true since the order remanding each case was entered without a hearing. Cooper v. Alabama, 353 F.2d 729 (5 Cir. 1966). However, even if accepted as true, the allegations in neither petition are sufficient to justify removal of a state prosecution to a federal district court under § 1443.
The appellants are not entitled to remove their state prosecutions by virtue of subsection 2 of 28 U.S.C. § 1443, since this subsection is only available to federal officers “and to persons assisting such officers in the performance of their official duties.” City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 815, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 1805, 16 L.Ed.2d 944 (1965). Neither appellant is a federal officer and neither contends that he was in any way assisting a federal official in the performance of his duties. Therefore, if either appellant is entitled to removal it could only be by virtue of subsection 1 of § 1443.
Subsection 1 affords a right of removal to any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of a state “a right under any law, providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof.” The Supreme Court in Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 1790, 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (1965), stated that “the phrase ‘any law providing for . . . equal civil rights’ must be construed to mean any law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.” Section 1443, therefore, “ ‘applies only to rights that are granted in terms of equality and not to the whole gamut of constitutional rights. . . . ’” Georgia v. Rachel, supra at 792, 86 S.Ct. at 1790, citing, New York v. Galamison, 342 F.2d 255, 269 (2 Cir. 1965).
In the present cases, neither appellant seeks the protection of any law which provides for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality. Both appellants are Caucasian. Lyman Grant is charged with larceny and his son, Lyman Eugene Grant, Jr., is charged with burglary, kidnapping, and armed robbery. The separate allegations contained in the petition of each appellant refer to possible violations of their respective rights to a fair trial and fundamental due process in the state courts. Such assertions cannot support a valid claim for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).
The district court committed no error in remanding the proceedings in these cases to the state court without an evidentiary hearing. The Motions for Remand filed by the state placed in issue the legal sufficiency of the allegations contained in the petitions for removal. An examination of each petition shows that the allegations therein are clearly insufficient since it appears to a certainty that neither appellant is entitled to removal under any state of facts which could be proved in support of his claim. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Leonard, 315 F.Supp. 215 (W.D.Pa. 1970) ; 2A J. Moore, Federal Practice jf 12.08 at 2274; see also South Carolina v. Moore, 447 F.2d 1067 (4 Cir. 1971) .
Accordingly, we dispense with oral argument and affirm.
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