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 "fiduciaries". 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 ex rel. DE VITA v. UHL, District Director of Immigration.
No. 42.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 7, 1938.
Emily Marx, of New York City, for appellant.
Lamar Hardy, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Samuel Brodsky, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. FIAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
CHASE, Circuit Judge.
The relator-appellant is an alien who was lawfully admitted to this country for permanent residence in 1913. He lived here until March, 1921, when he went abroad for a temporary visit. His visit was prolonged until October, 1927, when he re-entered the United States surreptitiously without either an immigration visa or a re-entry permit. He was arrested on November 9, 1936 on a warrant charging that at the time of his entry in 1927 he was not in the possession of an unexpired immigration visa. After due hearings a warrant of deportation was issued. He surrendered and then sued out a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was dismissed upon hearing and he has appealed.
His contention is that, having prior to his surreptitious entry acquired a domicile here which he had never relinquished and to which he was returning in 1927, he could enter of right without an immigration visa. Consequently he did not violate the provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924, 8 U.S.C.A. -§§ 145, 146, 166, 167, 179, 201 et seq., and at most entered only contrary to the Immigration Act of 1917, 39 Stat. 874, in that he did not present himself for inspection. The latter violation of the law cannot be the basis of deportation now since the period of limitation has expired.
We will assume that the alien was returning in 1927 to an unrelinquished domicile in this country but, even ^o, he could not enter lawfully unless he had either a re-entry permit or an unexpired immigration visa. United States v. Trudell, 284 U. S. 279, 52 S.Ct. 143, 76 L.Ed. 291; Id., 2 Cir., 49 F.2d 730. Despite the fact of his previous lawful residence here, he was an alien immigrant within the definition of that term in Sec. 3 of the Immigration Act of 1924, 8 U.S.C.A. § 203. .Karnuth v. United States, 279 U.S. 231, 49 S.Ct. 274, 73 L.Ed. 677. He has failed to show that he was within any of the exceptions dispensing with his neefl for an immigration visa. It is immaterial that he might, perhaps, have secured a re-entry permit which would have done away with the need of an immigration visa for he had no re-entry permit. Sec. 13(b) of the 1924 Act, 8 U.S. C.A. § 213(b), upon which he relies merely permits returning immigrants who have complied with the prescribed regulations to enter without an immigration visa but this relator had not so complied.
That he admittedly violated the 1917 Act is no evidence, of course, that he did not violate the provisions of the 1924 Act also and the record shows clearly that he did. Having entered contrary to the last mentioned statute without an unexpired immigration visa, he was subject to deportation at any time. 8 U.S.C.A. § 214. Deportation on this ground is not barred by the lapse of time. United States ex rel. Giuriciu v. Day, 2 Cir., 54 F.2d 362. That is the ground on which he was ordered deported and, accordingly, it was not error to dismiss the writ.
Affirmed.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0