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:
Fannie ARONBERG, Appellant, v. Harry N. WALTERS, Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, Appellee.
No. 84-1267.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 6, 1984.
Decided Feb. 27, 1985.
Mark E. Rubin, Richmond, Va., for appellant.
Robert W. Jaspen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Richmond, Va. (Elsie L. Munsell, U.S. Atty., Alexander, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before RUSSELL, PHILLIPS and MUR-NAGHAN, Circuit Judges.
MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge:
Fannie Aronberg decided that her employer, the federal government, had discriminated against her in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Race, age and religion all figured in her version of what had happened to her. Proper preliminary exhaustion of administrative remedies having occurred, Aronberg on October 28, 1983 filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Though decided against her in the district court, she has appealed the case, so that claim has not yet been finally disposed of.
February 2, 1984, Aronberg s employer attempted to reassign her from her time and leave clerk Position in the Dietetlc Service at the Veteran’s Administration Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia to a P°sition as Clerk in the Medical Administration Service. Viewing the reassignment as retaliation for her institution 0f suit, and asserting that the clerkship in the Medical Administration Service imposed physical requirements which she could not meet, Aronberg, on February 7, 1984, S0Ught injunctive relief to preserve the status quo pending determination of the claim that she had been discriminated against.
„ , . , . , , , . Relying on the requirement that a claim of retaliation must also first be administratively exhausted, the district judge declined to grant the requested injunctive relief on the grounds that he lacked jurisdiction to do so.
We, however, perceive the lawyer’s printipal resource, an applicable exception. Aronberg does not seek resolution of the retaliation claim, only protection against worsening of her position pending resolutio of her discrimination action. Sheehan v. Puralator Courier Corp. 676 F.2d 877, 885 (2d Cir.1982) states the point most adequately:
[F]or the court to renounce its incidental equity jurisdiction to stay such employer retaliation pending the EEOC’s consideration would frustrate Congress’s purposes. Unimpeded retaliation during the now-lengthy (180 day) conciliation period is likely to diminish the EEOC’s ability to . achieve conciliation. It is likely to have a chilling effect on the complainant’s fellow employees who might otherwise desire to assert their equal rights, or to protest the employer’s discriminatory acts, or to cooperate with the investigation of a discrimination charge. And in many cases, the effect on the complainant of several months without work or working in humiliating or otherwise intolerable circumstances will constitute harm that cannot adequately be remedied by a later award of damages. Given the singular role in 1964 of the individual private action as the only method of enforcing Title VII, and the continued view in 1972 of that right of action as “paramount,” we cannot conclude that Congress intended to preclude the courts’ use of their incidental equity power in these circumstances to prevent frustration of Congress’ goals.
The government asserts that federal employees are subject to different rules than private ones. It argues that the exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional and that sovereign immunity has not been waived by Congress in such a fashion as to permit the temporary injunctive relief sought by Aronberg. However, the argument is not persuasive. We are satisfied that the Georgia district court, quoting Parks v. Dunlop, 517 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1975), had it right:
The intent of Congress in enacting the 1972 amendments to [Title VII] extending its coverage to federal employment was to give those public employees the same rights as private employees enjoy. Therefore, our holding in Drew v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 480 F.2d 69 (5th Cir.1972) that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required applies with equal force to federal employees seeking relief under Title VII.
Goza v. Bolger, 538 F.Supp. 1012, 1017 (N.D.Ga.1982) (emphasis in original), affirmed without published opinion, Goza v. Bolger, 741 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir.1984).
Accordingly, the decision appealed is reversed and the case remanded for consideration on the merits of the application for temporary injunctive relief pending resolution of the suit charging discrimination.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
. We need not, therefore, explore the validity of the rationale of Gupta v. East Texas State University, 654 F.2d 411 (5th Cir. 1981), which excused administrative remedy exhaustion as a preliminary to filing, and pursuing on the merits, a retaliation claim.

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