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:
In re PHILIP A. SINGER & BRO., Inc. (four cases).
Nos. 7313-7316.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
June 11, 1940.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1940.
Abraham Alboum, of Newark, N. J., for appellants.
Robert F. Darby and Richard J. Congle-ton, both of Newark, N. J., for appellee.
Before BIGGS, CLARK, and BUF-FINGTON, Circuit Judges.
BIGGS, Circuit Judge.
Philip A. Singer & Bro., Inc., filed a petition for reorganization, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Bankruptcy Act, Act of July 1, 1898, c. 541, Sec. 101 et seq., as added June 22, 1938, c. 575, Sec. 1, 52 Stat. 883-905, 11 U.S.C.A. 501 et seq. The appellants are employees of that company who have filed claims for wages ba'sed upon an alleged agreement which arose under the following circumstances:, The debtor encountered financial difficulties. Singer, its president, gave orders to Fertell, its general manager and superintendent, to cut the salaries of all employees in half. Fertell ordered Villani, a foreman and one of the claimants-appellants, to inform the employees that it was necessary to cut their salaries. Villani so informed the employees, including the other claimants-appellants. Salaries accordingly were cut.
Disagreement arises by reason of the fact that it is not quite dear what Villani told the employees when he acted upon Fertell’s order. The appellants contend that Villani was the duly authorized agent of the debtor for dealing with its employees, that the agreement made by Villani with the employees on behalf of the debtor was that they were presently to receive one-half of their salaries but the remaining half was to be paid at a later date. Singer téstified that he told Fertell to tell the employees that their salaries would be cut in half and the other half would be paid only if business got better. Fertell testified that he gave this information to Villani with instructions to so inform the employees. Villani testified that, he told the employees that though their salaries would be cut in half, the remaining half would be paid at some future date, and that he omitted the qualification as to the improvement of the debtor’s business. The special master found that Singer was truthful when he testified as to what he had told Fertell. The appellants contend, however, that if Villani was the authorized agent of the debtor to arrange the pay cut, the debtor is bound by what Villani said and did.
If Singer’s testimony be accepted as the truth, it is apparent that Villani did not act within the scope of his authority in informing the employeés that the sums lost by the pay cut would be restored to them at a future date without referring to the condition that such restoration depended upon improvement in the debtor’s business. The issue alwáys remains one of fact, however, and in our opinion the trier of the facts was at liberty to disregard the whole or any part of Villani’s testimony and to find as he did, that Fertell himself told the appellants Caponigri, Tortoriello and Viola of the pay cut and the condition placed by Singer upon the restoration of the amounts cut. Upon the record we would conclude as did the special master that the salaries of the debtor’s employees were cut in half with a moral obligation upon the debtor’s part to restore such cuts if the future state of the business warranted it. The debtor’s business got worse instead of better; the debtor sought relief in a court of bankruptcy; and the moral obligation ceased to exist.
The order of the court below expunging the claims of the appellants is affirmed.
CLARK, Circuit Judge, took no part in the decision in this case.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0