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:
Francis WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Martin J. WIMAN, Superintendent, Kentucky State Reformatory, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17539.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 11, 1967.
J. David Francis, and John David Cole, Bowling Green, Ky., for appellant.
Charles W. Runyan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Ky., for appellee, Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Ky., on brief.
Before O’SULLIVAN, PHILLIPS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges.
CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge.
In 1964 the Petitioner was convicted in the Monroe Circuit Court of storehouse breaking and, as a third offender, was sentenced to life imprisonment as authorized under Kentucky’s Habitual Criminal Act, K.R.S. § 413.190. He perfected an appeal to the highest court of Kentucky, Wilson v. Commonwealth, 403 S.W.2d 705 (Ky.1966), and after affirmance of his conviction, he exhausted the available state post conviction remedies. Wilson v. Commonwealth, 403 S.W.2d 710 (Ky.1966). Petitioner then filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. It is from the denial of that writ that the instant appeal is taken.
Two grounds are asserted as justifying habeas corpus relief. Petitioner first contends that the habitual criminal conviction cannot stand for the reason that one of the convictions upon which the recidivist indictment was based was void, it having been obtained at a trial where the Petitioner was not represented by counsel. Secondly Petitioner contends that the Kentucky procedure of trying the instant crime and the habitual criminal count in the same proceeding destroyed the jury’s impartiality. Recognizing that Spencer v. State of Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 87 S.Ct. 648, 17 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967), foreclosed this contention, the Petitioner amended his petition to assert that the failure of the trial court to give any limiting instructions to the jury removed this case from the Spencer rule.
On the first ground it appears that the Petitioner was convicted of dwelling house breaking in the Warren Circuit Court in 1933. No adequate trial court records were available to clarify the circumstances surrounding the trial, but at least two facts are clearly established: At the time of his first conviction the Petitioner was under eighteen, and at the trial he pleaded guilty to breaking into the house of an uncle who had taken him in as an orphan. The Petitioner claims that he did not have the advice of counsel before making his plea and that he did not waive that right nor his rights as a juvenile. Several affiants testified that they were around the courthouse on the date of the 1933 trial and did not recall seeing an attorney with the Petitioner. On the Petitioner’s indictment, however, the name “Stagner” was written, and evidence was presented that it was the custom in the courts of that area to enter the name of the defense counsel on the face of the indictment. It was also shown that an attorney named Stagner began practicing law in Warren County in 1932.
Petitioner relies primarily upon his bare allegation and the fact that he pleaded guilty to breaking into the house in which he lived. He contends that no lawyer would permit such a plea. Also Petitioner contends that the presumption of regularity of court procedures must give way in this case to the presumption against waiver of counsel. But his reliance upon this conflict of presumptions is misplaced; before the conflict arises the Petitioner must establish that he did not have counsel at his trial. The District Judge was not so persuaded by the evidence presented, and from the record on appeal we cannot say that this finding of fact was clearly erroneous.
United States ex rel. Craig v. Myers, 329 F.2d 856 (3rd Cir. 1964), and United States ex rel. Lynch v. Fay, 184 F.Supp. 277 (S.D.N.Y.1960), upon which Petitioner relies to support his first contention, are not in point. In both of those cases it was first clearly established that the Petitioner was without counsel at his earlier trial. Perhaps the mere appearance of the name “Stagner” on the Petitioner’s indictment would have been insufficient to show that Petitioner was represented by counsel. Cf. Harris v. Boles, 349 F.2d 607 (4th Cir. 1965). But here the State produced evidence concerning the customary practice of the court and evidence that Stagner ;was a practicing attorney in the area at the time of the trial. This proof coupled with the presumption of regularity in court procedures is sufficient to overcome Petitioner’s bare allegation that he was without counsel. Had Petitioner established that he was without counsel, a heavy burden would have rested upon the State to prove that the right to counsel had been knowingly and intelligently waived. Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962); United States ex rel. Savini v. Jackson, 250 F.2d 349 (2d Cir. 1957). Having failed in the proof, however, Petitioner does not have the benefit of the presumption against waiver of counsel.
On his second ground the Petitioner contends that, though the recidivist procedure in Kentucky might be permissible under the Spencer rule, the failure of the trial judge to give limiting instructions to the jury concerning the prior convictions so prejudiced his case as to deny him a fair trial. It does not appear from the record before this Court whether a request for an instruction was made at the time of the charge to the jury. Nor does it appear that objection was made to the failure of the trial judge to charge concerning the prior convictions. Also the prior decisions of the Kentucky Court of Appeals relative to the instant case give no indication that this point was ever raised in the appeal or in the post conviction proceeding.
Moreover, the instant case is not factually identical to Spencer. Here the Petitioner elected to take the stand to testify in his own defense. The evidence of his prior convictions would have been properly admissible, therefore, as affecting the credibility of the Petitioner as a witness. Patton v. Commonwealth, 273 S.W.2d 841 (Ky.1954). So this Court is not faced with a Spencer-type case but with the proposition that the introduction of the properly admissible evidence of the Petitioner’s prior convictions was so prejudicial that the failure of the trial court to sua sponte instruct the jury as to the application of that evidence deprived the Petitioner of a fair trial as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Deficiencies in jury instructions, are generally waived unless they are asserted on appeal, and in the usual case the deficiency cannot be asserted on appeal unless a timely objection was made to the trial court. Nutt v. United States, 335 F.2d 817 (10th Cir. 1964). Dirring v. United States, 328 F.2d 512 (1st Cir. 1964). Kentucky follows the same rule. Neely v. Commonwealth, 325 S.W.2d 79 (Ky.1959). Although it is true that the exposure of the jury to certain evidence has been held so prejudicial that no instruction to the jury will cure the prejudice, Spencer compels the conclusion that prior convictions properly introduced are not in that category.
According to Spencer a limiting instruction would have cured the prejudicial effects of the introduction of Petitioner’s prior convictions. The Petitioner was represented by counsel at his trial, on his appeal, and at his State post conviction proceedings. Having bypassed his opportunity to object to the lack of an instruction in these proceedings, the Petitioner cannot now raise the issue in a federal collateral attack on his trial.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
. Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967), does not change the result in this case. There the records in question indicated that the defendant was without counsel or were silent concerning the presence of defense counsel. In the instant case the record contains an affirmative indication that the Appellant was represented at the 1933 trial.
. E. g. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) (possibly involuntary confession); Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250 (1959) (prior convictions that had been previously excluded by trial judge revealed to jury through newspaper articles; Court exercising supervisory power).

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