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 "fiduciaries". 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:
MARZO et al. v. SEVEN CORNERS REALTY, Inc., et al.
No. 9737.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Oct. 4, 1948.
Decided Nov. 15, 1948.
Mr. J. Richard Earle, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Mr. James C. Wilkes, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George A. Glasgow, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees.
Before EDGERTON, CLARK, and WILBUR K MILLER, Circuit Judges.
EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.
The principal question is whether the grant to appellants -and acceptance by them, in a deed of a dwelling house, of “a right of way for a foot path * * * 2 feet in width,” prevented them from acquiring by alleged necessity the right of way 10 feet in width that they claim in this suit. The deed provided that the right of way granted should “be used only, if, and so long as the highway .called Peabody Street shall be closed, discontinued, abandoned or cut off from communication from Brightwood Avenue.” Tuckerman Street has since been opened in about the location formerly contemplated for Peabody Street, except that appellants’ lot is separated from Tuckerman Street by a narrow gore, varying in width from zero to 2.52 feet, that belongs to persons who are not parties to this suit.
Appellants “having accepted the conveyance of this lot, with a restricted right of way, [are] barred from claiming a larger way as a necessity.” Haskell v. Wright, 23 N.J.Eq. 389, 396. Cf. Tiffany, Real Property, 3d Ed., § 793, pp. 290, 291. Whether probable intentions of grantors and grantees, or prevention of hardship, be the reason for “ways of necessity,” the reason fails here. Appellants and their grantors did not leave their intentions in doubt. There is no claim that they inadvertently described, in their deed, a narrower way than they intended to describe.- Though necessity has not diminished, as the parties to the deed apparently thought it would, neither has it increased. It does not appear that the 10-foot way appellants now demand, to which no grantor has agreed and for which no grantee has paid,- would inflict less hardship on appellees than appellants now suffer from lack of it. The demanded way would be some 217 feet long. It- would be a most serious encroachment on appellees’ lot. On the other hand appellants, for all that appears in their complaint, may be able to acquire on reasonable terms a right of way across the narrow and practically worthless gore that separates them from Tuckerman Street. They have sometimes rented this gore, or a way over it, for $12 a year.
Appellants’ complaint makes some attempt to claim that they acquired a 10-foot way by prescription; but it alleges use of a winding 2-foot way rather than a 10-foot way, and does not allege that even this use was adverse. Umhau v. Bazzuro, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 394, 133 F.2d 356.
The District Court was therefore right in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 2