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:
REINHARD v. RAFF.
No. 5997.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
May 19, 1936.
George A. Rupp, of Allentown, Pa., for appellant.
O. J. Tallman, of Allentown, Pa. (William Boone Douglass, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
The facts of the case are as follows: The bankrupt advertised for the services of an engineer. The claimant applied for the position. He was employed, but was asked to give bond for his good conduct. This lie was willing to do. Pending the short interval required to supply the bond, he was asked to deposit a certified check for $1,000. This he did. .The money was at once misappropriated by the bankrupt and used to pay wage claimants.
It will thus be seen that as the wage claimants were entitled to priority over general creditors, the application of the fruit of the fraud was really a payment in relief of the general creditors, and that the return of the money to the victim of the fraud in no way deprived the creditors of what would otherwise have been theirs. Moreover, to refuse such return to the defrauded man would in effect be to give such creditors twofold relief, namely, wiping out the wage claimants and giving the fruits of the fraud to the general creditors, lelieved of the priority of wage claimants. It will thus be seen the situation here presented measures up to the requirement stated in 34 Cyc. 348, namely:
“When the transactions establish a fiduciary relation between the parties, and not the relation of debtor and creditor only, a trust is created, the violation of which constitutes a fraud by which the Trustee or his Receiver cannot profit, and entitling the cestui que trust to prior payment out of the funds in the hands of the Receiver. * * * There must be some showing that the estate has been augmented by the trust fund, or at least that the estate has been so benefited by the misappropriation of the trust fund that the removal of its equivalent from the estate will be without prejudice to creditors.”
Holding, therefore, that the equities of this case are with the man defrauded and not with the general creditors and that the fund is identified as paid to the wage claimants, the decree below which ordered payment to the man defrauded is affirmed.

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

Choices:

Answer: 1