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:
Thomas GASKINS, Appellant, v. The Honorable Robert F. KENNEDY, Attorney General, and Kermit A. Weak-ley, Superintendent, D. C. Reformatory, Lorton, Virginia, Appellees.
No. 9863.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued May 7, 1965.
Decided Aug. 2, 1965.
Harvey B. Cohen, Arlington, Va. (Court-assigned counsel) [Tolbert, Lewis & Fitzgerald, Arlington, Va., on brief], for appellant.
MacDougal Rice, Asst. U. S. Atty. (C. V. Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellees.
Before BOREMAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, District Judge.
J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judge:
This appeal is from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without an evidential hearing. The district court entertained the habeas petition filed on June 29, 1964, and required the United States to make a return showing why the writ should not be granted. Thereafter the court, being of the opinion that the petitioner, Thomas Gaskins, was lawfully confined, dismissed the petition.
Gaskins, after having been convicted of violating 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 and 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 4704(a) and 4705(a) (narcotics violations), was sentenced on February 15, 1957, by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to a prison term of nine years. He was confined in the District of Columbia Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia, where his good time allowance was computed under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4161. He was conditionally released from Lorton on April 29, 1963, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4164, to remain in that status under the general supervision of the District of Columbia Board of Parole [hereinafter D.C. Parole Board] until the expiration of his sentence on August 18, 1965.
On December 24, 1963, a parole violator warrant was issued for Gaskins’ arrest by the D.C. Parole Board pursuant to section 24-205 of the District of Columbia Code [hereinafter D.C. Code] for alleged violations of the conditions of his release. On December 30, 1963, the warrant was executed, and Gaskins was returned to Lorton where his sentence was recomputed under the appropriate provisions of the D.C. Code, resulting in a mandatory release date of March 29, 1966. On February 20, 1964, the petitioner was given a hearing on the alleged violations of the conditions of his good time release; after this hearing the D.C. Parole Board, acting under section 24-206 of the D.C. Code, entered an order revoking his conditional release. Gaskins then filed the petition involved on this appeal.
Counsel for the petitioner asserts that he is presently illegally confined for three reasons: (1) as one who was convicted of violating a general federal law (as distinguished from a criminal statute of the District of Columbia), he is not subject to the supervision of the D.C. Parole Board, and therefore section 24-206 of the D.C. Code empowering the D.C. Parole Board to revoke a parole release is not applicable to him; (2) as a narcotics violator subject to the mandate of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7237(d), he is not subject to the provisions of the D.C. Code dealing with parole, specifically sections 24-201a through 24-209; and (3) he was denied due process when counsel was not assigned to him as an indigent at the hearing held prior to the revocation of his conditional release.
The petitioner’s first two contentions are without merit for the reasons stated in our opinion announced this day in Fuller v. Weakley, 349 F.2d 90. As for his third assertion, the prisoner’s petition itself states that his conditional release was revoked because he failed to make a required report to his parole supervisor in November, 1963, and Gaskins has never disputed this factual allegation. The response of the Government in this proceeding has appended to it an affidavit of the Secretary of the D.C. Parole Board which recites that the petitioner violated the terms of his conditional release in this and other respects. In Jones v. Rivers, 338 F.2d 862 (4 Cir. 1964), a panel of this court considered the question of the right of an indigent parolee or conditional releasee to be provided with counsel to represent him at a revocation hearing. Although the members of that panel expressed divergent views, we accept the decision in Jones as holding, at the very least, that at a routine rev-ocation hearing where the factual basis for revocation is not disputed, an indigent violator of the terms of his conditional release is not entitled to have counsel appointed to represent him. The instant case comes within that holding in Jones. See also Hyser v. Reed, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 318 F.2d 225, 238 (1963).
For these reasons the order of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. This section provides in essence that a prisoner who has been conditionally released “shall upon release be treated as if released on parole * * *."

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