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:
POWELL v. MEYER, Warden.
No. 8738.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Argued Feb. 14, 1945.
Decided Feb. 16, 1945.
Thomas Potter, of Princeton, N. J., for appellant.
C. William Caruso, of Newark, N. J. (Walter D. Van Riper, Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, and Jerome B. Litvak, Deputy Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges, and BARD, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order refusing to issue a writ of habeas corpus. It appears from the face of the petition and admissions made in presenting it to the judge below that petitioner was convicted in a court of the State of Georgia of the crime of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment; that he escaped from prison and came to the State of New Jersey; that he was arrested in the latter state on a warrant charging him with being a fugitive from justice; that the Governor of New Jersey in extradition proceedings ordered him returned to the State of Georgia; and that at the time of the filing of his petition for writ of habeas corpus he was held in custody under the warrant of extradition issued by the Governor of New Jersey.
Petitioner alleged in his petition that in the trial in Georgia which resulted in his conviction he was denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, although he admits that he was represented by competent counsel and that his conviction was appealed to and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia. Powell v. State, 193 Ga. 398, 18 S.E.2d 678. He makes no showing of having exhausted his remedies under state law or that any rights which he may have cannot be adequately safeguarded by appeal to the state tribunals. Under such circumstances it is perfectly clear that he is not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus from a federal court. Aside from the fact that the confinement of which he complains arises from the warrant issued by the Governor on the admitted fact that he is a fugitive from justice, it is well settled that the writ of habeas corpus from a federal court may not be used as a substitute for a writ of error to review the proceedings of state court, nor, even where there is allegation that the denial of constitutional rights is so gross as to oust the court of jurisdiction and invalidate the proceedings, may it be availed of until all remedies under the law of the state have been exhausted. See Sanderlin v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 138 F.2d 729, and cases there cited.
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