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:
Charles F. HANOVICH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Beryl C. SACKS, as Warden Ohio Penitentiary, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 14489.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
June 9, 1961.
William A. Ogden (Appointed by the Court), Cincinnati, Ohio (Charles F. Hanovich, in pro. per., on the brief), for appellant.
Aubrey Wendt, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Mark McElroy, Atty. Gen., John J. Connors, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellees.
Before MILLER, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and WEICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from an order of the District Court denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We assigned counsel to represent him here. An oral hearing was conducted in the District Court, but no transcript of evidence has been filed. It appears from the papers in the case that Hanovich was indicted by the Grand Jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio on January 6, 1929 on a charge of murder in the first degree resulting from shooting a policeman with a pistol. He entered a plea of not guilty. He was represented by competent counsel of his own choosing. The case was tried before a jury in the Common Pleas Court and resulted in his conviction, the jury recommending mercy. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and has been confined ever since in the Ohio State penitentiary.
No appeal was ever prosecuted from the judgment of conviction. No transcript of evidence .introduced at the trial of the criminal case has been prepared.
Hanovich previously filed an original action in habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Ohio alleging various errors and irregularities in his conviction. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the writ holding that he had an adequate remedy by appeal to review the alleged errors and irregularities and cannot now have such a review in a habeas corpus proceeding. Hanovich v. Alvis, 170 Ohio St. 360, 164 N.E.2d 739. Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, 363 U.S. 851, 80 S.Ct. 1630, 4 L.Ed.2d 1733.
Hanovich urges here that his constitutional rights were violated in his arrest in Chicago and removal to Cleveland for trial, the record not disclosing any extradition papers or whether he waived extradition. This claim is without merit. Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541.
He further contends that the Grand Jury in the state court was illegally constituted; that the record does not show the substitution of a new foreman of the Grand Jury; that there were only 14 members of the Grand Jury at the time the indictment was returned instead of 15 members as required by Ohio law.
Whether or not the Grand Jury was legally constituted involved solely a question of Ohio law. There was a presumption of regularity in the proceedings of the Common Pleas Court. Merely because a substitution may have been made in one or more of the members of the Grand Jury by an order of the court which was never formalized by journal entry does not render the proceeding void. Hanovich never questioned the validity or sufficiency of the indictment in the Common Pleas Court. Under Ohio law, remedies were available to him by way of motion to quash, plea in abatement or challenge to the array to attack the validity or sufficiency of the indictment. Where the accused enters a plea to the indictment and proceeds to trial without raising any question concerning defects in the indictment he is deemed to have waived them. R.C. § 2941.59 formerly G.C. 13439-11; State v. Whitmore, 126 Ohio St. 381, 185 N.E. 547; City of Toledo v. Soldier, 101 Ohio App. 273, 139 N.E.2d 631.
This point was presented to the Supreme Court of Ohio by Hanovich in his habeas corpus proceeding which was decided adversely to him. We think that the determination of this issue by the Supreme Court of Ohio is binding on us and cannot be relitigated in a second ha-beas corpus proceeding.
Other errors are claimed by Hanovich in his 78 page brief, but we deem them without merit. In our judgment, the state court had complete jurisdiction to try him on the charge of murder. The errors of which he complains were all such as could have been presented in a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction. He chose not to appeal. His rights under the federal constitution have not been violated.
Judgment 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