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:
TAYLOR et al. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6750.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 2, 1933.
H. M. Holden, U. S. Atty., of Houston, Tex.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
Tbe appellants C. S. Taylor, Raymond Tilghman, and Lewis Tilghman were convicted of breaking into a post office with intent to commit larceny and of the larceny of $1,000.
On the night of January 9,1932, the post office at Trinity, Tex., was broken into and the safe opened by chiseling or hammering off the doorknobs, and two canvas bags were stolen out of the safe, one containing $800 of which $300 were in $20 bills and $500 were in $5 bills; and the other containing $200, $100 in quarters and $100 'in half-dollars. These two packages were in transit from Houston to a bank in Chester, Tex. As there was no- direct evidence of the crime charged, the government relied for eonviction on circumstantial evidence. Appellants moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the circumstances were insufficient to prove their guilt. They also relied on certain rulings on evidence during the course of tho trial. Without entering into detail wo are unable to see that there was error in any ruling of the trial court of which complaint is made. The circumstances upon which tho jury based their verdict were these: Taylor and his wife, Raymond Tilghman and his former wife, Edna Rassmussen, left Wichita Falls, Tox., on December 31, 1931, in an automobile; proceeded down the state to Beaukiss, where they were joined by Lewis Tilghman in another automobile. They then visited in turn Austin, Huntsville, and Bay ■City. They reached Huntsville on the 8th of January. Taylor and Lewis Tilghman drove off in one of the automobiles and were met by the others later in the afternoon coming on tho road from the direction of Trinity, which is 20 miles from Huntsville. A witness in Trinity testified that he saw Lewis Tilghman and another stranger in the post office on the afternoon of the 8th. Edna Rassmussen became a witness for the government, and testified that all three men in their party left Huntsville late in the afternoon of the 9th and came back about 3:30 a. m. on the 10th, and immediately left and drove that day to Bay City; that the men only had about $50 between them before the post office was broken into, but that when they left Huntsville each of them had a quantity of silver tied up in a handkerchief, and a large roll of bills. After reaching Bay City appellants traded in both of their automobiles for two others, paying in addition $435 in twenty and five dollar bills. They also bought various other articles ranging in price from $15 to $20 each, for which they paid principally in silver in the denominations of quarters and half-dollars. About the middle of January a $20 bill bearing the serial number of one which had been stolen from the post office at Trinity was deposited in a bank at Bay City, although it was not shown by whom tho deposit was made. During the trip appellants were armed with pistols, and had flash-lights. When Taylor was arrested, two hammers and two chisels were found in his automobile. None of the appellants testified, or attempted to explain or contradict any evidence introduced by the prosecution; nor did Taylor’s wife.
In our opinion these circumstances, when ■considered not separately but altogether, undenied and unexplained by other exculpating circumstances, were sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury. The small amount of money which appellants had upon reaching Huntsville, their sudden coming into possession of a large amount of silver and bills of the very denominations that were taken out of the post office, the identification of one of them as a man who in company with another stranger was in the post office at Trinity the day before the burglary, their departure from Huntsville before day, shortly after the crime had been committed, the payment of relatively large bills in silver, their possession of pistols and flash-lights, of hammers and chisels, were circumstances which were consistent with guilt, and on the whole were inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
The judgment is 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: 3