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:
In the Matter of INLAND GAS CORPORATION, Debtor, Kentucky Fuel Gas Corporation, Debtor, American Fuel & Power Company, Debtor.
No. 12381.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 1954.
Robert S. Spilman, Charleston, W. Va., Thomas S. Dawson, Louisville, Ky., for appellants.
Selden S. McNeer, Huntington, W. Va., for Ben Williamson, Trustee.
John L. Davis, Lexington, Ky., for C. M. Harbison, trustee.
Milbank, Tweed & Hope, New York City, for Vanston Committee.
Oscar S. Rosner, New York City, for Green Committee.
Carlos L. Israels, New York City, for Paul E. Kern.
Wilkie, Owen, Farr, Gallagher & Walton, New York City, for Kentucky Fuel Gas Corp.
C. J. Odenweller, Cleveland, Ohio, for Securities and Exchange Commission.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
A joint petition by common stockholders of American Fuel & Power Company for modification of a confirmed plan of reorganization was submitted to the District Judge having charge of reorganization of the Debtors. Its purpose was to obtain for the petitioners an option to purchase the stock of the reorganized corporation appropriated to the payment of the secured creditors of the American Fuel & Power Company, the petitioners conceiving that successful operation by the trustee had substantially increased the value of Inland’s assets over that originally determined by the District Court. After full hearing, wherein the petition was opposed by committees representing the security holders of the debtors, the trustee of Inland and Kentucky Fuel, and disapproved by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the District Court, finding no merit in the effort of American’s common stockholders to capture any residual equity that may exist in Inland’s assets, so long as creditors are unsatisfied, entered an order, on the 7th day of September, 1954, dismissing the joint petition, Whereupon, the petitioners appealed.
On November 16, 1954, the Green Committee, acting for the note-holders of American, moved this court to docket the appeal and to dismiss it as frivolous, a sham, and without merit, or, in the alternative, to advance the cause to an early date for ■ argument, with or without briefs. All of the objectors below have filed memoranda in support of the motion to docket and dismiss, which we have carefully reviewed.
In the Matter of Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 211 F.2d 381, we gave approval to the amended plan of reorganization adopted by the District Court. We cited the long history of the proceed* ings, the numerous appeals reviewed by us and held that “in so far as the percentage assigned to American is not now needed for complete liquidation of its secured obligations, it is now available to Kentucky bondholders.” Throughout our many opinions, it has been made clear that the subordination of the Columbia claims was for the benefit of the security-holders of American Fuel and Kentucky Fuel, and that until the debts to both were satisfied, there was no occasion to consider any stockholder interest in either. We declined also to direct a new evaluation of Inland assets. We see nothing to be gained except delay in further hearing or argument. The issue is clear. The appeal is without merit and it is hereby
Dismissed.

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

Choices:

Answer: 99