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:
Dillard Elean HENDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 27360
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 8, 1970.
Dillard Elean Henderson, pro se.
H. M. Ray, U. S. Atty., Roger M. Flynt, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case comes to us from the District Court’s denial without an evidentiary hearing of Petitioner’s § 2255 motion to vacate sentence. Petitioner contends that his conviction was obtained in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, his Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and to confront the witnesses against him, F.R. Crim.P. 43, and his right to trial by an impartial jury. Zeroing in on these broad claims Petitioner asserts that (1) he was absent during part of the impaneling of the jury, (2) a juror slept through part of the trial, and (3) his attorney was not present for all the examination of a prosecution witness. We find all these contentions to be without merit and affirm.
Petitioner’s first contention is that he was not present during part of the impaneling procedure and that his presence is required by F.R.Crim.P. 43, which provides that “the defendant shall be present * * * at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury * * Although Petitioner’s statement that he was not present is shown by the record to be factually correct, we find that the error was harmless and should be disregarded under F.R.Crim.P. 52(a).
To handle challenges for cause the Judge and counsel withdrew to the Judge’s chambers. During Petitioner’s absence from chambers five things happened : the government announced it had no challenges for cause. Petitioner’s attorney challenged one juror for cause, which challenge was granted. Another juror was substituted and the United States announced it was satisfied. Petitioner’s attorney announced he was satisfied with the juror. The United States announced that it had no peremptory challenges with respect to the remaining 12 jurors. At this stage on discovery that defendant was not present, he was brought into the Judge’s chambers and the Court asked his counsel whether there was “any need * * * to go back through the preliminaries with respect to the exercise of challenges for cause.” To this his counsel answered with a categorical “No.” The momentary error of inadvertently allowing Petitioner to be absent brought no harm upon him since nothing occurred to his detriment, the Trial Court offered an opportunity to go back through the entire procedure, which was declined, and Petitioner was present during the entire peremptory challenge period and only 6 of his 10 peremptory challenges were exercised.
Petitioner’s second contention is that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury because a juror fell asleep during the trial. We agree that nothing was shown requiring a further hearing either as to the occurrence or timely notice to the Court to permit corrective action.
Petitioner’s last contention is that he was denied assistance of counsel during a portion of the trial because his attorney was absent from the courtroom. The claim arises out of this part of the record. A principal witness for the government had implicated Petitioner and several other defendants (one of whom, Glenn Nash, was an attorney) in a conspiracy to steal United States postal money orders. Immediately after this testimony and before cross-examination, a recess was taken. After the recess the government asked two principal questions. The first — presumably anticipating the inevitable inquiry on cross-examination — was whether he had been convicted of a felony (the reply was “Yes, in 1966”). The second was whether co-defendant Nash had ever represented the witness in legal matters. To this he answered that Nash had represented him in a divorce proceeding and in the present criminal case in the very beginning.
All counsel were given full opportunity for cross-examination, two did so, and nothing adverse to Petitioner came out. The first attorney elicited only testimony which exculpated his client. The second extensively cross-examined the witness bringing out testimony, such as the fact that he had been charged several times with passing bad checks and with a series of burglaries, that was damaging only to his credibility.
Quite obviously Petitioner’s counsel was satisfied, for when it came his turn to cross-examine he responded to specific inquiry of the Court that he had “No further cross-examination.” Nothing in this portion of the record transpiring subsequent to the recess affords any basis for concluding that for whatever time counsel was momentarily absent anything occurred which was harmful to Petitioner or — with or without hindsight — pointed up lines of inquiry which' a diligent counsel would have pursued.
Affirmed.
. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Hufth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.

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