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:
A. J. McALLISTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond D. CATLETT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17213.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
March 24, 1967.
Joseph E. Stopher, Louisville, Ky., for appellant, Joseph J. Leary, Frankfort, Ky., A. J. Deindoerfer, Boehl, Stopher, Graves & Deindoerfer, Louisville, Ky., on the brief.
Henry V. B. Denzer, Louisville, Ky., for appellee, Henry A. Triplett, Hogan, Taylor, Denzer & Bennett, Louisville, Ky., on the brief.
Before EDWARDS and McCREE, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a jury verdict for Defendant-Appellee Catlett in a diversity suit brought by Plaintiff-Appellant McAllister to recover for personal injuries incurred when Catlett fell from a pear tree and struck him. McAllister and Catlett were jointly engaged in picking pears. Immediately before the accident, Catlett was standing near the top of a ladder propped against the tree. Catlett’s testimony suggested that Mc-Allister was standing on the ground, but medical record histories introduced into evidence placed McAllister on one of the lower rungs of the ladder.
Appellant bases his appeal on two principal grounds: (1) the medical records indicating that McAllister had been standing on the ladder should not have been admitted into evidence, and (2) the trial court should have directed a verdict in his favor because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as applied to the facts of the case, permits no conclusion other than that McAllister’s injuries were caused by Catlett’s negligence.
The trial court held, and we agree, that the medical records were admissible and that the recitals in the histories presented a jury question on the issue of contributory negligence.
The records in question fall clearly within the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1732, which provides for the admissibility of business records. Circumstances concerning the making of the records may affect the weight to be given to them, but not their admissibility. Appellant argues, however, that since appellee testified that appellant had been on the ground prior to the accident, he was foreclosed from introducing evidence tending to contradict this testimony.
In Bolam v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 295 F.2d 809 (6th Cir. 1961), we recognized that there are situations in which a party will not be allowed to contradict his own testimony which defeats his right to a verdict. We noted there that this rule applies in Kentucky, the state of the trial court in the instant case. See Bell v. Harmon, Ky., 284 S.W.2d 812 (1955). We also stated, however, that the testimony involved in Bolam
“was not inadvertent, but was definite and unequivocal, stated several times on both direct and cross-examination, with no attempt made later to withdraw it, modify it, or explain it away.” 295 F.2d at 812.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals held in Bell v. Harmon, supra:
“The rule should be applied with caution because of the variable nature of testimony and because of the ever-present possibility of honest mistake. A judicial admission of this kind should in essence contain the elements of waiver.” 284 S.W.2d at 815.
The record shows that the following colloquy took place when Catlett was being questioned by McAllister’s attorney:
“Q. Was there a time when both of you were on the ladder?
“A. There was a time, yes.
“Q. Tell that to the jury and the Court, will you, please?
“A. A. J. picked pears around on the lower limbs and he asked me, said, ‘Ray, you think it will hurt if I get on the ladder,’ and I said, ‘Why, I don’t think it will hurt if you get on the ladder.’
“Q. And did he?
“A. He got on the ladder, yes.
“Q. How long did he remain on the ladder?
“A. Just a few minutes.
“Q. Then did he get down off the ladder ?
“A. I suppose he did, yes.”
When questioned by his own attorney shortly thereafter, the following ensued:
“Q. Do you actually know where Mr. McAllister was at the time you fell?
“A. Well, all I know is when I picked him up.
“Q. All you know is you picked him up on the ground ?
“A. Near the base of the ladder; yes, sir.
“Q. And you hit his shoulder, I think you said?
“A. Hit him right behind the shoulders, like, is where I hit him.
“Q. You didn’t see him or know where he was before you fell ?
“A. No, sir.”
The testimony of Catlett here was not of so unequivocal a nature that he should have been foreclosed from presenting evidence tending to show McAllister’s contributory negligence.
The judgment of the district court 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