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 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SHREVEPORT, Executor of the Estate of Lillian B. Fain, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 21497.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 15, 1965.
Rehearing Denied June 2, 1965.
W. Scott Wilkinson, Shreveport, La., Mark H. Johnson, New York City, for appellant.
Robert J. Golten, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty~ Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Donald R. Anderson, Crombie J. D. Garrett, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Edward L. Shaheen, U. S. Atty., Shreveport, La., for appellee.
Before GEWIN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and McRAE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This is an action by the Executor of the Estate of Lillian B. Fain to recover federal estate taxes in the amount of $195,963.19, plus interest, alleged by appellant to have been illegally assessed and collected. The controversy centers around the property settlement executed upon decedent’s judicial separation from her second husband in 1948. Both parties wanted a divorce, but Mr. Glassell would not agree to the separation until a firm understanding was reached concerning distribution of community property. Although her interest in the community property was probably worth more than the settlement which she accepted, the decedent agreed to the settlement whereby she would receive the family house, certain royalties, cash and bonds, and “Alfred will pay to Lillian one million dollars, * * * subject, however, to the conditions set forth in the following paragraph.” The following paragraph provided, in part: “The One million Dollar payment made by Alfred to Lillian will be placed by Lillian in trust”, which was to be irrevocable, the income to be paid to Lillian during her life, and the remainder to her three children and to Mr. Glassell’s son.
Decedent carried out the agreement by execution of the trust instrument and in 1949 paid gift tax on the remainder interest. In 1959, following an audit of decedent’s estate tax return, the Commissioner determined that the value of the trust corpus should be included in decedent’s estate under Section 2036 and a deficiency of $168,929.12 in taxes and $22,115.66 in interest was assessed and paid. Timely claim for refund was disallowed, and in the suit that followed the District Court sustained the action of the Commissioner. The case comes to this Court on appeal from that decision.
The sole question presented is:
Was the District Court correct in holding that the corpus of the Lillian B. Glas-sell Trust should be included in the estate of the decedent, Lillian B. Glassell Fain, under the retained life estate provisions of Section 2036 of the Internal Revenue Code?
The appellant argues that decedent did not transfer her property to the trust, but that, considering the transaction as a whole and looking to its substance, she transferred her community property interest to her former husband in order to obtain or acquire a life interest in the property which became the corpus of the trust, plus a limited power of appointment to name the remaindermen. It is argued that she obtained, not retained, a life estate, and therefore I.R.C. Section 2036 is not applicable. Hence the basic question presented to the lower court was “Who owned the property?”, or stated differently, “Who was the actual settlor of the trust?”
The District Court answered this question explicitly:
“the only conclusion consistent with principles of Louisiana law is that decedent, when she created the trust, held full ownership of the one million dollars and other properties.”
It is the opinion of the Court that this determination was clearly correct. Simply stated, the purpose of Section 2036 is to impose an estate tax upon property which the taxpayer gave away during his life but in which he retained economic benefit until his death. Greene v. United States, 237 F.2d 848, (7 Cir. 1956). Considering the substance of the transaction, this is exactly what is presented in this case. Before the transaction, Mrs. Fain had a vested one-half interest in community property valued at more than two million dollars. Bender v. Pfaff, 282 U.S. 127, 51 S.Ct. 64, 75 L.Ed. 252 (1930). After the transaction, Mrs. Fain had a life estate in property worth approximately the same as her vested interest in the community property and she had given the remainder interest to her children. The mere liquidation of her assets in the process of establishing a trust does not remove the corpus of the trust from the provisions of Section 2036.
The decision of the District Court is
Affirmed.
. Section 2036(a) at that time provided:
“(a) General Rule. — The value of the gross estate shall include the value of all property (except real property situated outside of the United States) to the extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has at any time made a transfer (except in case of a bona fide sale for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth), by trust or otherwise, under which he has retained for his life or for any period not ascertainable without reference to his death or for any period which does not in fact end before his death- — ■
(1) the possession or enjoyment of, or the right to the income from, the property, or
(2) the right, either alone or in con- • junction with any person, to designate the persons who shall possess or enjoy the property or the income therefrom.”

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0