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:
STASSI v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11433.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 28, 1945.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1946.
E. R. Schowalter and Jacob J. Amato, both of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Herbert W. Christenberry, U. S. Atty., and Nicole E. Simoneaux, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before McCORD and LEE, Circuit Judges.
McCORD, Circuit Judge.
Joseph Ago Stassi was indicted for a violation of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, § 11, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §311.
The one count of the indictment discloses ‘the important facts:
“* * * the defendant did unlawfully, knowingly, willfully and feloniously fail and neglect to perform a duty required of him under the provisions of the said Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 as amended, and the rules, regulations and directions made and issued pursuant thereto, by failing and neglecting to report to his said Selective Service Local Board, in writing or otherwise, certain facts which might have resulted in the said Joseph Ago Stassi being placed in a different classification than that in which he was placed during the period aforesaid, the said facts being that he, the said Joseph Ago Stassi, ■though having obtained employment at Delta Shipbuilding Company, Inc., was not, during the period aforsaid, a full time, regularly employed workman averaging 40 hours work per week at Delta Shipbuilding Company, Inc., that he was chronically absent from said employment, having worked only 11 days in the month of July, 1943, no days during the months of August, September and October, 1943, 10 days in the month of November, 1943, * * * and that during the period aforesaid, he was principally engaged in the operation of a barroom owned by him in the City of Hammond, State of Louisiana, the said defendant at all times well knowing that the classification which he then and there enjoyed was given him as a result of said Delta Shipbuilding Company, Inc. representing and certifying to said Selective Service Local Board Number 2, in and for the Parish of Tangipahoa, State of Louisiana, that he, the said Joseph Ago Stassi, during the period aforesaid, was a full time, regularly employed workman averaging 48 hours work per week at said Delta Shipbuilding Company, Inc., * *
The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty, and the court sentenced him to serve thirty months in the penitentiary and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars.
The only contention of defendant is that the regulation under which he was convicted is too vague, indefinite and uncertain to provide an ascertainable standard of guilt, and that it. violates the United States Constitution, Amendment VI.
The statute and regulation upon which the indictment is predicated provides:
“Any person who shall knowingly make, or be a party to the making of, any false statement or certificate as to the fitness or unfitness or liability or nonliability of himself or any other person for service under the provisions of this Act, or rules, regulations, or directions made pursuant thereto, or who otherwise evades registration or service in the land or naval forces or any of the requirements of this Act * * * or of said rules, regulations, or directions, or who in any manner shall knowingly fail or neglect to perform any duty required of him under or in the execution of this Act, or rules or regulations made pursuant to this Act * * * shall, upon conviction, * * * be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment, * * — Title 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 311.
“Each classified registrant shall, within 10 days after it occurs, and any other person should, within 10 days after knowledge thereof, report to the local board in writing any fact that might result in such registrant being placed in a different classification.” — Selective Service Regulation 626.1 (b).
We are of opinion that the regulation under attack affords an ascertainable standard of guilt and is constitutional. Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, 33 S.Ct. 780, 57 L.Ed. 1232; Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19, 61 S.Ct. 429, 85 L.Ed. 488. However, under our view of the case, it is not necessary to decide the constitutional question, since apart from the regulation the indictment is sufficient to charge an offense under 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 311.
When we strip away Selective Service Regulation 626.1 (b) and leave only the quoted excerpt of Section 311, just adverted to, we find that the indictment clearly and plainly charges a violation of this statute and is in nowise vague, indefinite or uncertain. Moreover, if the indictment charges a crime under any law of the United States, it is sufficient to support the verdict. Wessels v. United States, 5 Cir., 262 F. 389, certiorari denied 253 U.S. 485, 40 S.Ct. 481, 64 L.Ed. 1025; Moore v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 110 F.2d 386, certiorari denied 310 U.S. 643, 60 S.Ct. 1106, 84 L. Ed. 1411; Pickens v. United States, 5 Cir., 123 F.2d 333, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 669, 62 S.Ct. 1039, 86 L.Ed. 1744.
We find no reversible error in the record and the judgment is
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