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:
Fred FLOYD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 10247.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 11, 1966.
Decided May 4, 1966.
C. S. Bowen and Robert A. Clay, Green-ville, S. C., for appellant.
Jerome I. Chapman, Atty., Dept, of Justice (Richard M. Roberts, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks and George F. Lynch, Attys., Dept, of Justice, and John C. Williams, U. S. Atty., and James D. McCoy, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and J. BRAXTON CRAVEN, Jr., District Judge.
SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge:
An action was brought against the United States by Fred Floyd to restrain the collection of certain cabaret taxes, to remove the assessment against him therefor, and to release his property from seizure and threatened sale thereunder. Floyd’s complaint recites that the cabaret, the operation and ownership of which gives rise to a tax obligation, is in fact owned solely by his wife, and that he is not in any way financially involved in the enterprise. The District Court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss, relying on section 7421(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which reads: “Except as provided in sections 6212(a) and (c) and 6213(a) [which are not here relevant], no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court.” 26 U.S.C.A. § 7421(a).
We agree with the District Court that dismissal is compelled under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of section 7421(a) in Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962). There the Court was dealing with a suit by an employer to restrain the collection of social security taxes and unemployment taxes asserted by the Government to be due. The employer claimed that there was no employment relationship to which the taxes could apply. In reversing the lower courts’ grant of injunctive relief, the Supreme Court declared that a suit by an allegedly delinquent taxpayer to enjoin the collection of taxes must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless “it is clear that under no circumstances could the Government ultimately prevail.” 370 U.S. at 7, 82 S.Ct. at 1129. In the instant case the District Court concluded, and we concur, that it is not at all clear that the Government will ultimately fail to establish that the tax liability arising from the operation of the cabaret attaches to Mr. as well as Mrs. Floyd.
Appellant nevertheless presses the contention that he is a non-taxpayer, and therefore outside the proscription against suits for injunctive relief embodied in section 7421(a). Floyd does not dispute that the taxes assessed are valid taxes and are owed by the owner of the cábaret, but denies that he has any interest in the cabaret upon which tax liability could lawfully be predicated as to him. In response to this contention it is sufficient to say that this is precisely the issue that should be resolved in the ordinary channels of tax litigation. Falik v. United States, 343 F.2d 38 (2d Cir. 1965), (injunctive relief denied where plaintiff sought to contest the Government’s determination that she was a responsible officer of a tax-delinquent corporation). See also Cooper Agency, Inc. v. McLeod, 235 F.Supp. 276 (E.D.S.C.1964), aff’d per curiam, 348 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1965); Broadwell v. United States, 234 F.Supp. 17 (E.D.N.C.1964), aff’d per curiam, 345 F.2d 470 (4th Cir. 1965); Quinn v. Hook, 231 F.Supp. 718 (E.D.Pa.1964), aff’d per curiam, 341 F.2d 920 (3d Cir. 1965).
This is not a case where a property owner under no tax assessment is seeking to enjoin the Government from seizing his property to satisfy the tax obligation of another. Cf. Raffaele v. Granger, 196 F.2d 620 (3d Cir. 1952); Adler v. Nicholas, 166 F.2d 674 (10th Cir. 1948). See also Shelton v. Gill, 202 F.2d 503, 506 (4th Cir. 1953). Where no tax deficiency has been asserted against one whose property is seized, a suit against the Government for injuncfive relief seems peculiarly appropriate, for the aggrieved party, not being an alleged tax delinquent, would have no opportunity in the ordinary channels of tax litigation to contest the validity of the Government’s assessment.
With respect to Mr. Floyd, however, his complaint shows on its face that the Government has made a levy against him for a deficiency, and we cannot say that this is an exaction merely in “the guise of a tax.” Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7, 82 S.Ct. 1125 (1962).
The Order of the District Court is
Affirmed.
. 26 U.S.C.A. § 4231.
. A complete statement of the Court’s conclusion follows:
“The manifest purpose of § 7421(a) is to permit the United States to assess and collect taxes alleged to he due without judicial intervention, and to require that the legal right to the disputed sums he determined in a suit for refund. In this manner the United States is assured of prompt collection of its lawful revenue. Nevertheless, if it is clear that under no circumstances could the Government ultimately prevail, the central purpose of the Act is inapplicable and, * * * the attempted collection may he enjoined if equity jurisdiction otherwise exists. In such a situation the exaction is merely in ‘the guise of a tax.’ * * *
“We believe that the question, of whether the Government has a chance of ultimately prevailing is to be determined on the basis of the information available to it at the time of suit. Only if it is then apparent that, under the most liberal view of the law and the facts, the United States cannot establish its claim, may the suit for an injunction be maintained. Otherwise, the District Court is without jurisdiction, and the complaint must be dismissed.” 370 U.S. at 7, 82 S.Ct. at 1129.

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