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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Patrick BROUILLET, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Patrick BROUILLET, Defendant, Colonial Bonding Agency, Inc. and Heritage Insurance Company of North America, Inc., Appellants.
Nos. 82-2567, 82-2586.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
June 14, 1984.
Jerry Day of Shdeed & Hartmann, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant-appellant.
William S. Price, U.S. Atty., and Frank Michael Ringer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before SETH, Chief Judge, and HOLLOWAY, McWilliams, barrett, doyle, McKAY, LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.
SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.
Ernest Brouillet, the Colonial Bonding Agency, Inc., and the Heritage Insurance Company petition this court to reconsider en banc the order of a three-judge panel which dismissed the parties’ appeal for failure to file a timely notice. The appeal arose from a district court order denying motions to set aside the forfeiture of a criminal bail bond. In its order, the panel followed established precedent in this circuit holding that an appeal by a surety from a judgment on the forfeiture of a bail bond is a criminal matter, and that notice of appeal must therefore be filed within the ten day period prescribed for criminal cases by Fed.R.App.P. 4(b). See United States v. Jones, 567 F.2d 965, 966 (10th Cir.1977). Both appeals were untimely under this standard.
Brouillet was indicted on various drug charges and subsequently failed to appear for trial. The Government moved for forfeiture of his appearance bond, which the court granted. Brouillet then pled guilty and filed a petition for remission of the forfeiture judgment. A like motion was filed on behalf of the surety. The district court found no basis to remit the forfeiture of the bond and denied the motions. On November 16, 1982, the court denied timely filed motions for reconsideration. Brouillet filed his notice of appeal on December 14, and the surety filed its notice on December 16.
As these facts indicate, Brouillet and his surety filed their notices of appeal outside the ten day period provided for criminal cases in Fed.R.App.P. 4(b), but within the sixty day period provided in Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) for civil cases in which the United States is a party. Thus, the timeliness of this appeal turns on whether we characterize the appeal as criminal or civil in nature.
In Jones, we held that an appeal from a judgment on the forfeiture of a bail bond is a criminal matter. We reasoned that all provisions for release from custody on bail, including those providing for forfeiture and judgment of default against the obligors on the bond, are set forth in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and in the Criminal Code. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 46; 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (1982); Jones, 567 F.2d at 966-67. We further noted that Fed.R.Crim.P. 54 excepts certain proceedings from the rules of criminal procedure and that nothing in that rule “expresses an intent to exclude criminal bail bond forfeitures from the coverage of the criminal rules ____ As a general principle of statutory construction, if a statute specifies one exception to the general application, other exceptions are excluded____” Id. at 967.
Subsequent to Jones, four other circuits have faced this question, and they have uniformly adopted the opposite view. See United States v. Roher, 706 F.2d 725, 726 (5th Cir.1983); United States v. Jackson, 691 F.2d 478, 479 (11th Cir.1982); United States v. Martinez, 613 F.2d 473, 482 n. 30 (3rd Cir.1980); United States v. Plechner, 577 F.2d 596, 597-98 (9th Cir.1978). These circuits view a motion relating to the forfeiture of a bail bond as essentially a civil proceeding arising from a criminal one, similar to an action to collect a criminal fine. Martinez, 613 F.2d at 482 n. 30; Plechner, 577 F.2d at 597. “A bail bond is a contract between the government and the defendant and his surety ____ Upon forfeiture, the surety becomes the government’s debtor ____ Thus, the government’s motion for judgment [is] ‘civil, not criminal, in nature.’ ” Id. at 598. See also Roher, 706 F.2d at 726. In addition, these cases view the civil rule as “fairer to those adversely affected by a bond forfeiture.” Plechner, 577 F.2d at 598; Roher, 706 F.2d at 726.
We find the reasoning of these other courts persuasive. Accordingly, we have decided to disavow our earlier decision in Jones and to follow the current trend in the other circuits. We hold that the time for appeal from an order relating to the forfeiture of a criminal bail bond is governed by the rules for appeals from a civil case.
The appeals are reinstated.

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