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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Richard D. NEWHAM, Appellant.
No. 83-2171.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 27, 1984.
Decided March 2, 1984.
Richard D. Newham, pro se.
James M. Rosenbaum, U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Before HEANEY, ROSS and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Richard Newham appeals from the District Court’s denial of his motion to set aside sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He contends that the Government broke its plea bargain agreement with him by failing to clarify to the trial court the extent of his cooperation, and that as a result the court had incomplete information at the time of his sentencing. We conclude that the Government adequately complied with the terms of the plea agreement, and we therefore affirm.
In 1980, Newham pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud pursuant to a plea bargain. The bargain required him to cooperate fully with the Government and to testify at a mail fraud trial against three co-defendants who operated a business known as Federal Gold and Silver. In exchange the Government was to inform the court of his cooperation for the court’s consideration in sentencing. Under the agreement, the court could sentence Newham to up to five years’ imprisonment and a $1000 fine on each of the two counts. Newham cooperated with the Government before and during trial, and his cooperation was duly reported to the court prior to sentencing. On February 9, 1981, Newham received a sentence of four years’ imprisonment and a $1000 fine on each count, sentences to run consecutively.
In 1982, Newham testified for the prosecution in a separate mail fraud trial in Chicago. He claims the plea bargain agreement in the Federal Gold and Silver case required the Government to report all aspects of his cooperation to the trial court for consideration in determining his sentence. Because the Government failed to inform the court that his cooperation was to continue beyond the date of sentencing, he contends that the Government violated the agreement, and he is entitled to be sentenced in light of his additional cooperation.
After reviewing the record, the District Court concluded that the agreement required the Government only to report New-ham’s cooperation in connection with the Federal Gold and Silver trial. Any additional cooperation provided by Newham after his sentencing was not intended to be part of the sentencing consideration.
The District Court’s factual determination about the terms of the plea agreement is not clearly erroneous. The record supports the conclusion that the United States Attorney’s statement to the court at the time of Newham’s sentencing fulfilled the Government’s obligation under the plea-bargain agreement.
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable Diana E. Murphy, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
. On November 21, 1983, Newham was paroled after serving 33 months of his sentence.
. The Government submits that Newham’s later testimony in the Chicago case was the result of a separate agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office in Chicago, pursuant to which that office was to make Newham’s cooperation known to the Parole Commission.

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