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 ex rel. Thomas KLING, Relator-Appellant, v. J. E. LaVALLEE, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, Respondent.
No. 340, Docket 27053.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued June 14, 1962.
Decided July 11, 1962.
John Dwight Evans, Jr., New York City (The Legal Aid Society, Anthony F. Marra, New York City, on the brief), for relator-appellant.
Samuél A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Gretchen White Oberman, Asst. Atty. Gen., of New York (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., of New York), for respondent-appellee.
Before FRIENDLY, KAUFMAN and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge.
Thomas Kling was indicted for a number of crimes arising out of an armed robbery of the Sunnyside, Long Island branch of the Manufacturers Trust Company on March 9, 1950. Kling’s counsel, appointed by the County Court of Queens County, made a timely motion for a severance of Kling’s trial from that of his well publicized co-defendant William (“Willie”) Sutton, on the ground that Kling would suffer prejudice from Sutton’s notoriety and would thus be deprived of a fair and impartial trial. The motion was denied. Kling then was tried with Sutton; and on April 1, 1952, a jury found Kling guilty of (a) burglary, third degree, (b) robbery, first degree, (c) grand larceny, first degree, and (d) assault, second degree. The trial judge, Hon. Peter T. Farrell, sentenced Kling as a fourth felony offender to a term of 30 years to life imprisonment on each of the four counts, the sentences to run concurrently. Kling did not appeal from these convictions, but he did secure a resen-tencing as a third felony offender. The revised sentence was for a term of 20 to 60 years on each count of the indictment, to be served concurrently.
Meanwhile, in a related proceeding in the Court of General Sessions of the County of New York, Kling pleaded guilty to a charge of carrying a concealed and loaded weapon. Originally sentenced to a term of 15 years to life imprisonment as a fourth felony offender, this sentence was also reduced to a period of 7 to 14 years on motion made to the trial court. No appeal was taken from the conviction, and no subsequent challenge to its validity has been made.
The complex history of Kling’s post-trial efforts to relieve him of the Queens County conviction is interesting. In February, 1958, Kling moved in the Queens County Court to set aside the convictions obtained against him six years earlier as a result of his trial with Sutton. Kling’s petition, which was in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, alleged that he had been prevented from appealing the denial of the pre-trial motion for severance and the judgment of conviction, because of the ineptitude of his court-appointed counsel. Kling also alleged that he had been deprived of due process in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, because the prosecution knowingly used perjured testimony against him, and because it suppressed evidence which tended to establish his innocence. The motion was denied by Judge Farrell without a hearing on April 2, 1958.
Kling filed a notice of appeal from this denial, and sought leave to proceed as a poor person in the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Second Department. The application was opposed by the District Attorney, not on the ground that the allegations of poverty were untrue, but on the asserted lack of merit in the appeal. On December 15, 1958, the Appellate Division denied the motion with a brief order. People v. Kling, 11 A.D.2d 917, 206 N.Y.S.2d 1019 (2nd Dept. 1958). When that court also denied a motion to reargue the application on May 18,1959, People v. Kling, supra, Kling prepared a pro se petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking for review of the denial of his coram nobis motion and the Appellate Division’s denial of his application for permission to proceed as a poor person. See U. S. ex rel. Marcial v. Fay, 247 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 915, 78 S.Ct. 342, 2 L.Ed.2d 274 (1958). After calling for a response from the District Attorney for Queens County in connection with Kling’s allegation of suppression of evidence, the Supreme Court denied the petition. Kling v. New York, 361 U.S. 935, 80 S.Ct. 376, 4 L.Ed.2d 356 (1960). Meanwhile, the Appellate Division, on motion of the District Attorney, dismissed Kling’s appeal to that court. People v. Kling, supra.
Kling then brought the instant proceeding by filing a handwritten petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He renewed the contentions raised previously in the state coram nobis proceedings, and also alleged (as he had in the petition for certiorari) that the Appellate Division deprived him of due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment by denying his application for permission to appeal as a poor person from Judge Farrell’s decision on the coram nobis motion. The District Court, on the basis of affidavits and the record of the coram nobis proceedings, dismissed the petition for habeas corpus. The court’s opinion is reported in 188 F.Supp. 470 (N.D.N.Y.1960).
This appeal from the District Court’s order raises a number of questions for decision. Kling contends, among other things, that the lower court’s failure to hold a hearing on the merits of his claims at which he could offer evidence to substantiate his allegations was reversible error. We agree with appellant that there was nothing in the record before Judge Foley which conclusively demonstrated that Kling’s allegations relating to the prosecution’s use of perjured testimony or its suppression of evidence were wholly without merit; and those allegations, when viewed together with the affidavits produced in support of the petition, certainly were not frivolous. Although, on the facts before us, Kling’s showing did not approach that in U. S. ex rel. Almeida v. Baldi, 195 F.2d 815, 33 A.L.R.2d 1407 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 904, 73 S.Ct. 639, 97 L.Ed. 1341 (1952), or U. S. ex rel. Thompson v. Dye, 221 F.2d 763 (3d Cir. 1955), both cited with approval in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1955), those were eases in which hearings had been held; Kling asserted enough to entitle him to one. It follows, therefore, that if this were the only question on appeal, we would be compelled to reverse the decision 'below and to remand for a hearing. But it is not, for respondent-appellee also argues that Kling’s petition is premature, because he is now serving under an admittedly valid sentence imposed in New York County for the crime of carrying a concealed and loaded weapon. See Mc-Nally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 181, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934). However, we do not find it necessary to decide the merits of that issue, for we hold that Kling has not yet exhausted available state remedies — a prerequisite to relief under section 2254.
Since June 22, 1959, when Kling’s appeal to the Appellate Division was dismissed, the New York Court of Appeals has held that,
“The right to appeal requires a review of the merits upon appeal and is not satisfied by a mere consideration of those merits upon a submission of affidavits on' an application for leave to have the appeal heard on the original papers.” People v. Borum, 8 N.Y.2d 177, 203 N.Y.S.2d 84, 168 N.E.2d 527 (1960).
See also People v. Fish, 9 N.Y.2d 695, 212 N.Y.S.2d 753, 173 N.E.2d 678 (1961); People v. Garcia, 8 N.Y.2d 1143, 209 N.Y.S.2d 827, 171 N.E.2d 903 (1960). As a result of these decisions, we are informed by the Attorney General of New York, the Appellate Division, Second Department, has granted all motions to vacate its previous orders dismissing appeals which were entered after the appellant had first moved unsuccessfully for leave to appeal as a poor person. See e. g., People v. Abair, 13 A.D.2d 802, 218 N.Y.S.2d 498 (2d Dept. 1961) vacating 12 A.D.2d 737, 214 N.Y.S.2d 1020 (1960); People v. De Pina, 13 A.D.2d 692, 215 N.Y.S.2d 449 (2nd Dept. 1961) vacating order of dismissal entered March 9, 1959; People v. Horty, 13 A.D.2d 831, 217 N.Y. S.2d 549 (2nd Dept. 1961) vacating order of dismissal entered March 9, 1959; People v. Johnson, 13 A.D.2d 831, 218 N.Y.S.2d 464 (2nd Dept. 1961) vacating order of dismissal entered April 4, 1960; People v. Lund, 13 A.D.2d 692, 215 N.Y.S.2d 451 (2nd Dept. 1961) vacating order of dismissal entered January 10, 1955; People v. Messina, 13 A.D.2d 831, 217 N.Y.S.2d 547 (2nd Dept. 1961) vacating order of dismissal entered March 10, 1958; People v. Williams, 13 A.D.2d 693, 215 N.Y.S.2d 715 (2nd Dept. 1961) vacating 12 A.D.2d 660, 210 N.Y.S.2d 817 (1960).
Since there is no time limit on motions to vacate a dismissal of an appeal by the Appellate Division, it is apparent that Kling may now seek this relief. Furthermore, in view of the cited cases, it seems clear that this relief will be granted and that Kling will thereby secure a review of the denial of his coram nobis motion. The desirability of pursuing this remedy is manifest. The New York appellate courts quite properly will be given an opportunity to examine Kling’s contentions; and, if the Appellate Division decides that Judge Farrell erred, Kling will be given an opportunity to present evidence in coram nobis proceedings in support of his allegations. If he proves his claim that court-appointed counsel deprived him of his right to appeal, there is every reason to believe that he will be given another opportunity to perfect the appeal from his conviction, despite the lapse of ten years. See People v. Hairston, 10 N.Y.2d 92, 217 N.Y.S.2d 77, 176 N.E.2d 90 (1961).
In any event, as long as this remedy is available, we believe Kling should not pursue federal habeas corpus. This is not an exercise in futility and frustration. It is a recognition of the principle that “it would be unseemly in our dual system of government for a federal district court to upset a state court conviction without an opportunity to the state courts to correct a constitutional violation * * * ” Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 204, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761 (1950). See U. S. ex rel. Buckley v. Wilkins, 2d Cir., June 15, 1962, and cases cited therein. Therefore, we hold that Kling has failed to exhaust his available state remedies within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and that his petition must be dismissed for that reason. Cf. U. S. ex rel. Allen v. Murphy, 295 F.2d 385, 386 (2d Cir. 1961).
We wish to express our thanks to the Legal Aid Society, Anthony F. Marra, and John Dwight Evans, Jr., for the extensive preparation undertaken in connection with this appeal.
Affirmed.
. This Court originally denied Kling’s application for a certificate of probable cause, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, with an order stating: “Motion denied without prejudice to a renewed application at such time as petitioner is no longer serving the sentence not presently being attacked.” May 25, 1981. However, on petition for rehearing, the Court recalled its mandate and granted the application on June 25, 1961. At that time permission was also granted for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915; and counsel was assigned to assist Kling in the preparation of his appeal.

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