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:
Ralph L. BELL, Appellant, v. John J. CLARK, Warden, Federal Reformatory, Petersburg, Virginia, Appellee.
No. 14421.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Nov. 9, 1970.
Decided Feb. 5, 1971.
George E. Allen, Richmond, Va. (Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen, Richmond, Ya., on the brief), for appellant.
Roger T. Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Captain John T. Lenga, Dept, of the Army (Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty., and David G. Lowe, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Lt. Col. Arnold I. Melnick, Dept, of the Army, on the brief) for appellee.
Before BRYAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and MARTIN, Chief District Judge.
ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge:
This habeas corpus cause is pressed by Ralph L. Bell under the circumstances described by the District Court as follows:
“Bell is presently confined to the Federal Reformatory, Petersburg, Virginia, as a consequence of a conviction by a general court martial for the crime of rape, as set forth in Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S..C. § 920.
“The Court finds that on September 16, 1965, Bell was a Private First Class serving with the United States Army, ‘A’ Battery, 2d Battalion, 18th Artillery, then stationed in Germany. At the time of the offense for which he was convicted Bell was off duty, in civilian clothes, approximately five miles from the military base at which he had been quartered, and the victim of the crime was a German national. In short, and pursuant to judicial guidelines, the crime to which he pled guilty and for which he is now confined was non-service connected.
“Shortly after the commission of the crime Bell was apprehended and the German authorities waived the preliminary jurisdiction which accrued to them, * * *, pursuant to Article 19 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Status of Forces Agreement. In accordance with said waiver by the German authorities a general court martial was convened at Giessen and Frankfort/Main, Germany, resulting in his conviction on January 24, 1966, wherein he was ordered to be dishonorably discharged from the service, to forfeit pay and allowances, and to be confined at hard labor for seven years and reduced to the grade of E-l. * * *” [Citations omitted.]
Bell contends that the military court was without jurisdiction in that the crime was not service-connected. For this, he relies upon O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258, 89 S.Ct. 1683, 23 L.Ed.2d 291 (1969), in which this argument was sustained in regard to such a crime committed in the then United States Territory of Hawaii where civil courts were open for his trial. That was the key to O’Callahan. “The offenses were committed within our territorial limits, not in the occupied zone of a foreign country”. Id., at 273, 89 S.Ct., at 1691. In these circumstances, the Court declared that the accused was entitled to the rights conferred by Article III, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, including trial by jury, “presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury” and “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed”. Since instantly the crime was not perpetrated in such a venue, O’Callahan does not exclude court-martial. United States v. Keaton, 19 USCMA 64, 41 CMR 64 (Court of Military Appeals 1969).
Appellant’s crime, as noted, was a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801, et seq., 920. That statute defines the persons subject to the code in these terms:
“The following persons are subject to this chapter:
“(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the following: that part of Alaska east of longitude 172 degrees west, the Canal Zone, the main group of the Hawaiian Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.” 10 U.S.C. § 802(11).
This section is complemented by Article 17 stating that: “Each armed force has court-martial jurisdiction over all persons subject to this chapter”. 10 U.S.C. § 817(a). As regards court-martial jurisdiction in a foreign country, these two provisions are reinforced by the Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces, 4 UST 1792. Gallagher v. United States, 423 F.2d 1371, 191 Ct.Cl. 546 (1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 849, 91 S.Ct. 58, 27 L.Ed.2d 86 (1970). These enactments and this area of the Agreement are permitted by Article I, § 8, Clause 14 of the Constitution empowering Congress “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”.
Executed by the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty, including the Federal Republic of Germany, on June 19, 1951, 63 Stat., pt. 2, p. 2241, it was ratified by the United States Senate on July 15, 1953, signed by the President on July 24, 1953, and became effective August 23, 1953.
The Preface of the Agreement outlines its aims and purposes:
“The Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on 4th April, 1949.
“Considering that the forces of one Party may be sent, by arrangement, to serve in the territory of another Party;
* x * x x x
“Desiring, however, to define the status of such forces while in the territory of another Party;
“Have agreed as follows:
X X X X X X
Article VII
“1. Subject to the provisions of this Article,
“(a) the military authorities of the sending State shall have the right to exercise within the receiving State all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the law of the sending State over all persons subject to the military law of that State;” (Accent added.)
Article I, § 1(f) gives this clarifying definition:
“ ‘military authorities of the sending State’ [the United States] means those authorities of a sending State who are empowered by its law to enforce the military law of that State with respect to members of its forces or civilian components”.
Undoubtedly Bell could have been prosecuted by the German civil authorities, for his acts were also punishable by German law. The Agreement in Article VII, sec. 3(b) provides:
“(b) In the case of any * * * [concurrent] offence the authorities of the receiving State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction.”
Considering the plan of the Agreement, we think the provisions just quoted unequivocally preserve jurisdiction in the United States military authorities in Germany over crimes committed there by American soldiers, notwithstanding that the crime was not perpetrated within the territory of the United States occupation. The Agreement discloses a purpose to channel jurisdiction of an offender like Bell to the military authorities of his nation to the exclusion of every other United States court.
Acceptance of the Agreement’s provisions is compulsory upon all courts of the United States, for the Agreement, having the form and force of a treaty, is given supremacy by Article VI, cl. 2 of the Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; * * *”
Moreover, it conforms to Article III, § 2, cl. 3 of the Constitution, directing that:
“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” (Accent added.)
Congress in ratifying the Agreement has met the command of this section, by declaring that trials of servicemen stationed abroad be conducted where United States military authorities are present to exercise jurisdiction.
The court-martial’s jurisdiction is not subordinate to the Act of Congress, 18 U.S.C. § 3238, passed pursuant to Article III, stating that:
“The trial of all offenses begun or committed upon the high seas, or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, shall be in the district in which the offender, or any one of two or more joint offenders, is arrested or is first brought; but if such offender or offenders are not so arrested or brought into any district, an indictment or information may be filed in the district of the last known residence of the offender or of any one of two or more joint offenders, or if no such residence is known the indictment or information may be filed in the District of Columbia.” (Accent added.)
This statute does not clothe the serviceman with any vested privilege. In our view, Article VII of the Agreement, providing court-martial trial for offenses committed abroad, is not incompatible with the statute. The treaty-making authority evidently designed Article VII to meet the special exigencies of a foreign occupation. This was its right. To read Article VII otherwise would disrupt the whole pattern of the treaty. This part of the Agreement is impliedly an assurance to the “receiving State” that those servicemen of the “sending State” who break the former’s laws should be tried immediately. Expedition would be defeated if the offender could not be punished by the American military authorities in Germany. This prohibition might well discourage the referral of the accused to the “sending State”, and substitute a trial in the “receiving State”, as the latter may insist upon under the Agreement. Such a result would destroy the comity evinced by the signatories. We believe the treaty authorized, and the statute permitted, the court-martial of Bell.
The remaining question raised by the appellant of the retroactivity of O’Callahan is academic. We note that the issue has been presented in Relford v. Commandant, 409 F.2d 824 (10 Cir. 1970), cert. granted, 397 U.S. 934, 90 S.Ct. 958, 25 L.Ed.2d 114 (1970).
The District Court’s dismissal was right.
Affirmed.

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