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:
In re Herbert E. RUSSELL, Debtor. Thomas S. STREETMAN, Trustee for the Estate of Herbert E. Russell, Debtor, Appellant, v. Herbert E. RUSSELL, Appellee.
No. 91-2457.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 7, 1992.
Decided Feb. 20, 1992.
Thomas S. Streetman and William S. Meeks, Crossett, Ark., for appellant.
Susan Gordon Gunter, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and BEAM, Circuit Judge.
BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge.
Thomas S. Streetman (Trustee), appellant and trustee of Herbert E. Russell’s (Russell) bankruptcy estate, appeals from the district court’s dismissal, of Count V of appellant’s amended complaint, for failure to state a claim. Count V sought punitive damages from Russell for his fraudulent concealment of estate assets. The order appealed from is not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), nor is it appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Accordingly, we hold that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and we dismiss this appeal.
I. BACKGROUND
Trustee filed this action on June 11, 1990 seeking recovery of sums of money that Russell owed to the estate and revocation of Russell’s discharge in bankruptcy for failure to comply with the settlement agreement and fraudulent concealment of estate assets by Russell. On November 23, 1990, Russell filed a motion to dismiss, which included a request for a jury trial. After the bankruptcy court certified the case to the district court to determine whether Russell was entitled to a jury trial, Trustee filed a motion to remand, asserting that no jury trial issue existed. Trustee then filed an amended complaint adding Count V, which sought punitive damages for the fraudulent concealment. Russell filed a motion to dismiss. In a memorandum opinion and order dated May 23, 1991, the district court granted the motion to dismiss, only as to Count V, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, reasoning that the bankruptcy code does not provide for punitive damages under these circumstances and that Trustee had failed to raise any other grounds upon which jurisdiction could be based. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Trustee then filed this timely appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
This court has a duty to examine its jurisdiction, and may do so on its own motion if necessary. 8th Cir. Rule 47A(a). See Faysound Ltd. v. Falcon Jet Corp., 940 F.2d 339, 341 n. 2 (8th Cir.1991). We are obligated to dismiss an appeal if it is not within our jurisdiction. Id.
The courts of appeals have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of the district courts of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court’s dismissal of Count V for failure to state a claim does not constitute a final judgment on the merits of the entire lawsuit; nor did the district court enter a Rule 54(b) order directing the entry of final judgment as to that count. Id. Thus, the dismissal is not appealable as a final order.
The. collateral order doctrine, first announced in Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), represents a narrow exception to the final judgment rule of section 1291. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 374, 101 S.Ct. 669, 673, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981). The Eighth Circuit recognizes this exception to the extent that the order appealed from affects “ ‘rights that will be irretrievably lost in the absence of an immediate appeal.’ ” United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 785 F.2d 206, 210 (8th Cir.1985) (quoting Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 431, 105 S.Ct. 2757, 2761, 86 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985)). The district court order must also “ ‘conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.’ ” Id. (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2458, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978)).
The requested remedy of punitive damages, contained in Count V, will not be irretrievably lost if its dismissal is not immediately appealable. Moreover, the claim for punitive damages is not separable from and collateral to the common law fraud claim in the remainder of the case. The common law fraud claim may be defeated, mooting out the punitive damages claim. Appellate consideration should be deferred until the rest of the case is adjudicated before the bankruptcy court.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
. The Hon. Oren Harris, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

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

Choices:

Answer: 1