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:
GALLARDO, Treasurer of Porto Rico, v. SANTINI FERTILIZER CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
December 18, 1926.)
No. 1862.
1. Courts <@=v>405(7) — Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction. of appeal in oase where federal court’s jurisdiction was acquired because local law violated federal Constitution (Pol. Code Porto Rico, §§ 294, 295, 297).
Circuit Court of Appeals is without jurisdiction of appeal in case wherein federal court acquired jurisdiction on ground that Pol. Code Porto Rico, §§ 294, 295, 297 (Rev. St. & Codes 1913, §§ 2946, 2947, 2949), was in violation of United States Constitution; appeal therefrom lying only to Supreme Court.
2. Courts ®=>405(7) — Case involving construction of federal Constitution will be transferred under law in effect at time appeal was allowed (Act Feb. 13, 1925 [43 Stat. 936]; Comp. St. § 1215a).
Where appeal in case involving construction of federal Constitution was allowed before Act Feb. 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936), took effect, case must be transferred to Supreme Court, under Act Sept. 14, 1922 (Comp. St. § 1215a).
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Porto Rico; Odlin, Judge.
On rehearing. Decree vacated, and cause transferred to Supreme Court.
For former opinion, see 11 F.(2d) 587.
Russell H. Brennan and Col. William Cat-tron Rigby, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Nelson Gammans, of New York City, for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
This is a bill in equity brought by the Santini Fertilizer Company against Juan G. Gallardo, treasurer of Porto Rico, in which, among other things, it seeks to restrain him from collecting a tax assessed against the plaintiff for the year 1923-1924, and from assessing and collecting from it for the fiscal year 1924r-1925 and subsequent years a property tax upon goods in its hands in the original packages in which the same was imported by it from foreign countries. In the bill it is alleged that the plaintiff for several years has been engaged in the business of importing goods from'foreign countries; that on January 15,1923, it had on hand in its warehouse in the city of San Juan merchandise in the original bags in which the same had been imported from Germany and France by it, the aggregate value of which was $26,131, and upon, which the defendant assessed a tax; that on January 15, 1924, it had on hand in its warehouse merchandise in the original packages, likewise held and imported by it from foreign countries, which the defendant threatens to tax; and that said acts done and threatened to be done are illegal and without warrant of law; for sections 294, 295, and 297 of the Political Code of Porto Rico (Rev. St. & Codes 1913, §§ 2946, 2947, 2949), under which the defendant purports to take the action and make the alleged threats, as construed by the tax officials of Porto Rico, impose a tax upon merchandise so imported and held by the importer in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
There was no allegation of diverse citizenship, and diverse citizenship does not exist. The jurisdiction of the District Court was invoked solely upon the ground that the controversy involved the construction or application of the federal Constitution. The decree appealed from was entered March 21, 1925, and the appeal to this court was allowed April 7, 1925. Section 238 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1215), as in force at the date of the appeal, provided for appeals directly from the District Court to the Supreme Court in any case that involved the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States. As, according to the allegations of the bill, the jurisdiction of the District Court was invoked upon the ground that the controversy involved the construction or application of the Constitution, and that alone, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, for in such cases an appeal lies only to the Supreme Court. Carolina Glass Company v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 318, 36 S. Ct. 293, 298 (60 L. Ed. 658). In that case it was said: “This writ brings up a judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, affirming the same final judgment of the District Court considered in No. 205, supra, 206 F. 635. There is no allegation of diverse citizenship and the trial court’s jurisdiction was invoked solely upon the ground that the controversy involved application of the federal Constitution. In such circumstances the Circuit Court of Appeals is without jurisdiction to review. Union & Planters’ Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 73 [23 S. Ct. 604, 47 L. Ed. 712].”
The appeal having been allowed before the Act of February 13, 1925, c. 229 (43 Stat. 936), took effect, the case must be transferred to the Supreme Court under the Act of September 14, 1922, c. 305, 42 Stat.. 837, being Comp. St. § 1215a (Salinger, Jr., v. United States, 47 S. Ct. 173, 71 L. Ed. -, decided by the Supreme Court November 23, 1926), and our previous order herein revoked.
Our decree in this case of March 3, 1926, is set aside, and the ease is transferred to the Supreme Court.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0