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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Curtis HOLUB, Appellant.
No. 91-2288NI.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 27, 1991.
Decided Sept. 13, 1991.
David McManus, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for appellant.
Kandice Wilcox, Asst. U.S. Atty., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for appellee.
Before FAGG, BOWMAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.
FAGG, Circuit Judge.
Curtis Holub appeals the district court’s order dismissing his indictment without prejudice. We dismiss Holub’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
In late 1988, the Government indicted Holub on a number of counts relating to the distribution of marijuana and cocaine. For reasons attributable to both Holub and the Government, Holub’s final trial date was scheduled for March 1991 — more than two years after Holub’s initial indictment. Holub sought dismissal of his indictment with prejudice, contending the delay violated his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment, U.S. Const, amend. VI, and the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174 (1988). The district court ruled the delay did not violate Holub’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, but held the delay did violate the Speedy Trial Act. The district court concluded, however, that given the circumstances in this case the appropriate remedy was to dismiss Holub’s indictment without prejudice to the government to reindict Holub.
On appeal, Holub contends the district court abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss Holub’s indictment with prejudice under the Speedy Trial Act. For its part, the Government concedes the delay violated the Speedy Trial Act and dismissal of the indictment was proper. Nevertheless, the Government contends the district court’s decision to dismiss the indictment without prejudice is not a final order subject to appeal. We agree.
The circuit courts of appeals that have considered the question agree a district court order dismissing an indictment without prejudice under the Speedy Trial Act is not a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. United States v. Jones, 887 F.2d 492, 493 n. 2 (4th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1081, 110 S.Ct. 1137, 107 L.Ed.2d 1042 (1990); United States v. Kelley, 849 F.2d 1395, 1396-97 (11th Cir.1988); United States v. Reale, 834 F.2d 281, 282-83 (2d Cir.1987); United States v. Bratcher, 833 F.2d 69, 71-72 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1030, 108 S.Ct. 760, 98 L.Ed.2d 772 (1988); see also United States v. Day, 806 F.2d 1240, 1242 (5th Cir.1986) (district court order dismissing indictment without prejudice on Government’s motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) not a final appealable order); United States v. Moller-Butcher, 723 F.2d 189, 190-91 (1st Cir.1983) (same); United States v. Lanham, 631 F.2d 356, 357-58 (4th Cir.1980) (same). We find the reasoning of these authorities persuasive and now hold a district court order dismissing an indictment without prejudice under the Speedy Trial Act is not a final decision subject to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Likewise, we reject Holub’s argument that the district court’s order falls within the collateral-order exception to the final-judgment rule under Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). See Kelley, 849 F.2d at 1397; Reale, 834 F.2d at 282-83; Bratcher, 833 F.2d at 72. Should Holub be reindicted and convicted, he can pursue his claims on direct appeal. See Kelley, 849 F.2d at 1397 & n. 2; Reale, 834 F.2d at 282.
Finally, the district court’s ruling rejecting Holub’s Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim is neither a final decision subject to appeal nor appealable as a collateral order under Cohen. United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 857, 861, 98 S.Ct. 1547, 1553, 56 L.Ed.2d 18 (1978).
Accordingly, we dismiss Holub’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0