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:
George Mansel CARPENTER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 83-1973.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 7, 1983.
Decided Nov. 14, 1983.
George W. Proctor, U.S. Atty., E.D. Ark. by Kenneth F. Stoll, Asst. U.S. Atty., Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
George M. Carpenter, pro se.
Before HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and JOHN R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
George Mansel Carpenter appeals the district court’s denial of his petitions for post conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He was convicted in 1976 of kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201, and interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. He received a 40 year and 5 year sentence, to run consecutively. He argues that his sentences should be vacated or corrected because (1) he was denied an opportunity to review his presentence investigation report prior to the imposition of his sentence, (2) the report was inaccurate and incomplete, (3) the government failed to disclose favorable information prior to his sentencing, and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the time of his sentencing. Carpenter also contends that the inaccuracies in his presen-tence investigation report preclude him from receiving meaningful parole consideration. We affirm.
Carpenter argues that he should have been given an opportunity to read his presentence investigation report prior to imposition of his sentence. He made no specific request to see the report, however, and absent such a request the district court had no affirmative duty to disclose the contents of the report to him. Williams v. United States, 711 F.2d 847, 848 (8th Cir. 1983); Knight v. Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, 583 F.2d 1071, 1073 (8th Cir.1978). Fed.R. Crim.P. 32(e) now requires disclosure of the presentence report to defendant and counsel, but did not do so at the time of Carpenter’s sentencing.
Carpenter also argues that his presen-tence report is inaccurate because it omits information concerning his history of alcoholism. He contends that the Government purposely concealed this information from the sentencing judge, that had the judge known about his alcoholism he would have received a lighter sentence, and that the omission of this information from the report has hindered his parole eligibility. We have examined Carpenter’s presentenee report and have found that his drinking problem was mentioned three times. The section of the report discussing his health states that he consumes a large amount of vodka, and in the section discussing his marital history two of his ex-wives state that he was a heavy drinker. The sentencing judge had this information before him at the time sentence was imposed.
Carpenter further alleges that his appointed counsel was ineffective because he failed to investigate the facts fully, failed to disclose to the court certain relevant facts of which he had knowledge, and failed to request that a study be prepared on Carpenter’s alcoholism prior to sentencing.
Carpenter does not demonstrate error in the following statements made by the district court in its judgment:
The Court is of the opinion the petitioner received effective assistance of counsel. Further, he had the opportunity at sentencing to correct any inaccuracies in his presentence report.
To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, Carpenter must show (1) that his attorney failed to exercise the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances, and (2) that he suffered material prejudice as a result. Langston v. Wyrick, 698 F.2d 926, 930 (8th Cir.1982). A presumption exists that counsel is competent, and the petitioner bears a heavy burden in overcoming the presumption. Harris v. Housewright, 697 F.2d 202, 206 (8th Cir.1982). Carpenter’s conclusory allegations are insufficient to rebut this presumption of competency.
Further it cannot be said that Carpenter’s counsel failed to exercise customary skill and diligence in not requesting a study on Carpenter’s alcoholism. Information concerning Carpenter’s drinking problem was already included in the presentence report.
Carpenter’s other arguments concerning the voluntariness of his guilty plea were not raised before the district court. We may not consider such issues. See United States v. Gardner, 579 F.2d 474, 476 (1978); Little v. United States, 524 F.2d 335, 337 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 920, 96 S.Ct. 1125, 47 L.Ed.2d 326 (1975).
Accordingly, the district court’s denial of the petitions for post conviction relief is affirmed.
. The Honorable Oren Harris, United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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