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:
LOCAL 2, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TELEPHONE WORKERS, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TELEPHONE WORKERS, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 7332.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Oct. 1, 1969.
Joseph T. Doyle, Boston, Mass., for appellant.
Warren H. Pyle, Boston, Mass., with whom Angoff, Goldman, Manning & Pyle, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Following our previous decision in this case, 362 F.2d 891, 1966, cert. denied 385 U.S. 947, 87 S.Ct. 321, 17 L.Ed.2d 226, the International Union returned to Local 2 the payment which we there ruled to have been illegally collected. It did not return the corresponding payments made by other locals, with the re-suit that the individual members of those locals from whom, under our holding, there had been unlawful exactions, were not made whole, nor did it offer to do so. Rather, the International Union voted assessments on all local unions in the precise amounts hitherto collected, and provided that those payments which had not been refunded by International should be credited. In other words, the status quo immediately prior to the original litigation was voted to be continued or, to the extent that it had been interrupted, namely, with respect to Local 2, restored.
Local 2 sought an injunction against the collection of its assessment as being in violation of the prior decree. The district court made such an order, stating that it would reserve the question of attorneys’ fees, damages and costs pending International’s appeal.
In the course of oral argument on appeal we remarked that we thought we had made it abundantly clear that an assessment could not be made upon past members who were ’ not current members. Appellant replied that it was not doing this; that the 1967 assessment was upon the present members, and was merely measured by the size of the past membership at a certain date.
We do not rely on the fact that, seemingly, counsel’s response was precisely the opposite of what the record shows he told the membership prior to the 1967 vote, when it was challenged as being contrary to our decision.
“This is an assessment against the whole International Union, every individual member that was a member during the period September 1, 1964 through June 30, 1965. This is an assessment, an overall assessment. And it is for that period of time that the court said that the increase in dues was improper.” (Emphasis suppl.)
Conceivably, although it does not presently so appear to us, see Articles XIV through XVIII of International’s 1967 Constitution, by “every individual member” counsel was referring simply to locales, not individual workers. Nor need we consider whether, as a general proposition, an assessment may be divided between locals on the basis of their respective membership at some date long past. As a result of the decree International was not in an unfettered position. It had a burden of so conducting itself as to avoid trespassing on the intent of the court as made reasonably apparent. On the facts recited in the first paragraph of this opinion it did not even approach such a standard.
The order of the District Court is affirmed. Pursuant to Rule 38 appellee is awarded double costs. This award is without prejudice to the reserved action in the district court by way of costs, etc.
We do, however, leave this question to the district court, to assist it in determining whether tire 1967 vote was so contumacious of the prior decree as to warrant the imposition of all attorneys’ fees in this proceeding.

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