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:
HORNER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 5305.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
July 26, 1934.
Thomas D. McCloskey, Ered C. Houston, Kinnear, McCloskey & Best, and Arthur W. Henderson, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.
Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Louis Monarch, S. Dee Hanson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.
This is a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals. The petitioner owned stock of the American Rolling Mill Company. On January 10, 1928, the company issued rights to subscribe to additional stock on the basis of one share of new stock for each six shares of old stock at $75 a share. These rights expired on February 10, 1928. In January, 1928, the petitioner subscribed to 1,550, shares and, prior to their delivery, he agreed to and did sell an equal number of shares. He delivered certificates for 1,550 shares of the old stock then owned and held by him. It is undisputed that the sale was made by the petitioner in anticipation of the receipt by him of the new shares of stock, and that it was his intention and purpose to sell the new stock. In his income tax return for 1928 he computed the profit derived from the sale on the basis of the prospective cost of the new stock to be acquired; that is, $75 a share.
The Commissioner computed the profit on the basis of the cost of the old stock, which was less than $75 a share, and determined a deficiency. The Board of Tax Appeals found as a fact that the sale was of the petitioner’s old stock, representing a transaction completed before he had acquired the additional stock upon his right to subscribe, and therefore sustained the Commissioner’s assessment of a deficiency.
The Board of Tax Appeals held that sections 111 (a) and 113 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1928 (26 USCA §§ 2111 (a) and 2113 (a) were applicable. These sections provide:
“See. 111. (a) Except as hereinafter provided in this section, the gain from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the excess of the amount realized therefrom over the basis provided in section 113 [section 2113], and the loss shall be the excess of such basis over the amount realized. * * *
“Sec. 113. (a) The basis for determining the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property acquired after February 28, 1913, shall be the cost of such property. * * * ”
There is nothing in either section which permits gain or loss to be determined on the basis of the intention of the parties. The Board determined from the facts what was actually done rather than what the petitioner intended to do. The petitioner sold the stock he had, not the stock he anticipated obtaining.
The Board concluded that the transaction constituted a sale of the old stock and that the taxable gain was properly computed on that basis. We are in entire accord with the reasoning and conclusions set out in its decision. 28 B. T. A. 360.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is sustained.

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