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:
COX v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11028.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
April 28, 1938.
Powhatan H. Jackson,'of Kansas City, Mo. (Sloáne Turgeon, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
Otto Schmid, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Maurice M: Milligan, U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for the United States.
Before GARDNER, SANBORN, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
SANBORN, Circuit Judge.
The appellant was tried and convicted upon the first count of an indictment charging that on or about-January 5, 1936, he sold to Carl -V. Powell, in Newton cpunty, Mo., a 1935 model Chevrolet four-door sedan, motor No.- 5183599, serial No. 5EAÓ6 — ■ 13962, which had been stolen from O,' S. French, the owner, at Pitts.burg, Kan., on January 4, 1936, and was moving in interstate commerce, and which the appellant knew had been stolen. National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, § 408-, tit. 18, U.S.C.,-18 U. S.C.A. § 408. ‘
The evidence'of the government upon the trial showed that on Saturday, January 4, 1936, at some time between the hours of 6 and 9 o’clock in the evening, at Pittsburg, Kan., the Chevrolet four-door sedan described in the indictment was stolen by some unidentified person from O. S. French; that on Sunday afternoon, January 5, 1936, the appellant — who had on the previous Saturday afternoon agreed to procure and sell to Carl V. Powell a Chevrolet sedan which the appellant intimated would be stolen within seventy-five miles of Joplin, Mo. — delivered to Powell, in Newton county, Mo., a 1935 model Chevrolet four-door sedan under circumstances clearly indicating that the automobile was a stolen automobile and that the appellant knew that it had been stolen.. The evidence also showed that the appellant gave to Powell a forged bill of sale of the automobile, purporting to be signed by Mrs. Tom Strickland of Eureka Springs, Ark., which described the automobile as a 1935 Chevrolet sedan, motor No. 5400365, s'erial No. E3A06 — 44957; and that the application for a certificate of title for the automobile, filed by Powell with the secretary of state of the state of Missouri, described it as-a 1935 model Chevrolet, engine No. 5400365, and serial No. 3EA06— 44957.
Aside from the testimony that the automobile sold to Powell in Missouri on Sunday was of the same model, type, and style as the automobile stolen from French in Kansas on Saturday, that the French automobile was stolen shortly after the appellant agreed with Powell to procure for him such an automobile within a radius of seventy-five miles of Joplin, and that Powell subsequently entered a plea of guilty in the federal court based upon his possession of the automobile sold by the appellant to him, there is no evidence to justify even a suspicion . that the automobile stolen from French was the same automobile which was sold to Powell..
Proof'that an automobile of a well-known and widely distributed type and model is stolen in one state on Saturday and that a similar car is sold and delivered in an adjoining state on the following day ■is not-sufficient evidence upon which to base ■ a'finding that the automobile stolen was the ■automobile sold, or a finding that the automobile sold -was, an automobile which had moved in interstate commerce and was still .a part of interstate- commerce. This.is because the evidence, taking that view of it most favorable to the government, is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that the automobile sold was a different automobile than that which was stolen. Evidence which is consistent with two conflicting hypotheses tends to prove neither, Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 94, 50 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed. 720; Stevens v. The White City, 285 U.S. 195, 204, 52 S.Ct. 347, 76 L.Ed. 699; Svenson v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 8 Cir., 87 F.2d 441, 443; New York Life Ins. Co. v. King, 8 Cir., 93 F.2d 347, 353; and proof of circumstances which, while consistent with guilt, are not inconsistent with innocence, will not support a conviction, Spalitto v. United States, 8 Cir., 39 F.2d 782, 784; Van Gorder v. United States, 8 Cir., 21 F.2d 939, 942; Cravens v. United States, 8 Cir., 62 F.2d 261, 274; McClintock v. United States, 10 Cir., 60 F.2d 839, 842.
Since the government failed to identify the automobile sold in Missouri to Powell on January 5, 1936, as the automobile stolen from French in Kansas on January 4, 1936, it failed to prove that the crime charged had been committed. One of the essential elements of the crime, which the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, was that the automobile sold to Powell in Missouri had moved in interstate commerce and was still a part of interstate commerce. Davidson v. United States, 8 Cir., 61 F.2d 250, 255; McAdams v. United States, 8 Cir., 74 F.2d 37, 39. Unless the stolen automobile had moved and was still moving in 'interstate commerce when it was sold, the sale was not a federal offense and the court below was without jurisdiction to deal with it.
The appellant, at the close of the government’s case, moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the government’s evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. His motion was denied. Pie then put in his defense. He did not renew his motion for a directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence. By failing so to do, he lost his right to challenge in this court the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, and there is no ruling of the trial court of which he has any right to complaint. Ayers v. United States, 8 Cir., 58 F.2d 607, 608, 609. However, where it clearly appears in a criminal case that a defendant has been convicted of an offense which the evidence fails to show was committed, the error of submitting the case to the jury for determination is so plain and vital that this court is at liberty to and will reverse even in the absence of a proper motion and exception, not because the defendant has a right to demand a reversal, but solely in the public interest and to guard against injustice. Wiborg v. United States, 163 U.S. 632, 658, 16 S.Ct. 1127, 1197, 41 L.Ed. 289; Ayers v. United States, supra, 8 Cir., 58 F.2d 607, 609, 610.
The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

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