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, Appellee, v. Willie TURNER, Appellant.
No. 77-1868.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 6, 1978.
Decided April 13, 1978.
Robert E. Lipscomb, Paralegal Asst, of Counsel, on brief, for appellant; Willie Turner, pro se.
Andrew W. Danielson, U.S. Atty. and Daniel M. Scott, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Before HEANEY, STEPHENSON and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Willie Turner appeals the District Court’s denial of his post-conviction motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. We affirm.
On January 28, 1977, Turner pled guilty to one count of possessing heroin, with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The penalty for violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) is imprisonment for not more than fifteen years, a fine of not more than $25,000, or both, and a mandatory special parole term of at least three years. A mandatory special parole term of life is possible. Turner was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years and a special parole term of five years. Turner filed pro se motions in the District Court to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d), and to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. The motions, as well as a subsequent motion for reconsideration, were denied by the District Court without an evidentiary hearing. This appeal followed. Turner asserts on appeal that the District Court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing, and in refusing to resentence him or to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea because the court failed to advise him of the maximum penalty provided by law in compliance with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11.
The only deficiency of the guilty plea hearing was the failure to advise Turner that he could possibly receive a maximum special parole term of life. However, Turner was told that he could receive a maximum sentence of fifteen years and a mandatory special parole term of at least three years. The District Court sentenced Turner to imprisonment for ten years and a special parole term of five years. Even if the five-year special parole term was to materialize, the maximum period of incarceration would be fifteen years. This is equal to the maximum period of imprisonment for which he had bargained. It is less than the maximum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment and special parole term of at least three years for which he had bargained.
We agree with the District Court that the failure to advise Turner of the possible maximum life special parole term did not prejudice Turner and does not constitute the “manifest injustice” necessary under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d) to allow withdrawal of the guilty plea. This Court has denied relief in similar cases arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Ortiz, 545 F.2d 1122 (8th Cir. 1976); United States y. Rodrigue, 545 F.2d 75 (8th Cir. 1976); McRae v. United States, 540 F.2d 943 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1045, 97 S.Ct. 750, 50 L.Ed.2d 759 (1977).
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
. The Ninth Circuit has stated that,
we doubt that the “manifest injustice” standard [of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d)] is any more rigorous than, or differs from, that which would entitle a prisoner to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; we see little sense in denying a post-judgment attack made under Rule 32(d) where the prisoner would be entitled to relief, and could return in a subsequent proceeding to request it, under § 2255.
United States v. Harris, 534 F.2d 141 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1976).

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