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. Tobias BUND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Edwin LaVALLEE, Warden of Auburn State Prison, Auburn, New York, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 199, Docket 29160.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Nov. 30, 1964.
Decided April 5, 1965.
Emanuel Bund, New York City (Gerald Sultan, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner-appellant.
Joel Lewittes. Asst. Atty. Gen., Harold Roland Shapiro, Asst. Dist. Atty., New York County, New York City (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Samuel A. Hirsho-witz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Iris Steel, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, on the brief), for respondent-appellee.
Before FRIENDLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BLUMENFELD, District Judge.
Sitting by designation.
BLUMENFELD, District Judge.
This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of the appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Bund was convicted in a New York state court after a trial by jury on each of three counts of first degree larceny in obtaining three separate advances of $5000 each from one Elson and his wife by means of false and fraudulent representations and on a fourth count for forging a stock certificate in a non-existent enterprise given to the Elsons in return for their investment. He was sentenced to be confined on each count for a term of not less than one year and three months nor more than two years and six months, the sentences to run concurrently. The main claim on this appeal is that Bund was denied his constitutional rights when the prosecution and the trial court refused to make the El-sons’ testimony before the Grand Jury available to him.
During the cross-examination of El-son, defense counsel alluded to the Grand Jury hearing, but made no request at that time for the production of the record. It was not until after the cross-examination of Elson and his wife had been completed that the trial judge stated he had examined the Grand Jury testimony and that there were no substantial variances between the Grand Jury testimony and that offered upon the trial. The Grand Jury minutes were returned at which time the trial judge remarked that he would follow the rule in People v. Walsh, 262 N.Y. 140, 186 N.E. 422 (1933), under which the Grand Jury minutes are not made available to the defense unless the court determines that it contains some substantial variances from the witness’ testimony at trial.
The record includes the Grand Jury minutes and the proceedings at the trial and on the appeal. The conviction was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, People v. Bund, 18 App. Div.2d 638, Case #2 (1962). The New York Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed without opinion, People v. Bund, 13 N.Y.2d 766, 242 N.Y.S.2d 65,192 N.E.2d 31 (1963), and amended its remittitur by adding a clear statement that the appellant’s constitutional claims were denied. Certiorari was denied, 376 U.S. 919, 84 S.Ct. 676, 11 L.Ed.2d 614 (1964). The appellant has exhausted state remedies. United States ex rel. Weinstein v. Fay, 333 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1964).
It is plain that the concept of due process does not require that a witness’ Grand Jury testimony must always be turned over to the defense. In Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395, 79 S.Ct. 1237, 3 L.Ed.2d 1323 (1959), a federal prosecution where the Supreme Court was free to exercise its supervisory powers over the administration of criminal justice and thus to go beyond constitutional requirements, it declined to apply its decision in Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103 (1957), relying on the historic policy of secrecy surrounding Grand Jury proceedings. Although this Circuit requires its own trial judges to examine the Grand Jury testimony of witnesses who give evidence at a criminal trial and makes this available to the defense where inconsistencies exist, e. g., United States v. Zborowski, 271 F.2d 661, 666 (2d Cir. 1959); United States v. McKeever, 271 F.2d 669, 672 (2d Cir. 1959); United States v. Giampa, 290 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1961), there has been no hint that this procedure was thought to be compelled by the due process clause of the fifth amendment.
The absence of a constitutional requirement that Grand Jury testimony of a witness must always be made available to the defense does not necessarily mean that it never need be. It could be argued with some force that when the Grand Jury testimony is exculpatory and the trial testimony inculpatory, or even when both are inculpatory but so inconsistent as to cast serious doubt on the veracity of the witness, failure to make the Grand Jury testimony available on request is within the principle of decisions holding it to be a denial of due process for the prosecutor to fail to disclose known exculpatory evidence to the defense. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); Barbee v. Warden, 331 F.2d 842 (4th Cir. 1964); United States ex rel. Butler v. Maroney, 319 F.2d 622 (3d Cir. 1963). Whether a state could justify non-disclosure of Grand Jury testimony of that character against due process attack on the basis of the historic policy of preserving the secrecy of Grand Jury testimony is an issue on which the Supreme Court has yet to speak.
We find it unnecessary to decide that issue here. Upon his independent examination of that record, the District Judge found that at most what was at stake was whether the witness had told the Grand Jury that a promise to deliver a certificate of stock was made before he advanced money to the defendant or afterwards. The time relation between the two events was not an element in any of the crimes charged in the indictment and was not material for any purpose independent of the self-contradiction of the witness. The few sematic discrepancies stressed by the appellant were fragmentary. Their contrasts were oblique. We are unable to perceive any interpretation from the interconnexion of the Grand Jury testimony of the El-sons with that they gave at the trial, nor has any been suggested to us, which furnishes even a pretext for a claim that exculpatory evidence was suppressed.
A final point remains. The appellant claims that he was denied due process of law because the New York Court of Appeals refused to apply retroactively its own decision in People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L.Ed.2d 64 (1961), a case decided after the appellant was convicted but before the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. Eosario held that a prior statement of a witness, including his testimony before a Grand Jury, should be made available to the defense for possible use on cross-examination. There is nothing in the Constitution which requires a state to make its decisions retroactive. Warring v. Colpoys, 122 F.2d 642, cert. denied, 314 U.S. 678, 62 S.Ct. 184, 86 L.Ed. 543 (1941); cf. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 25, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, 55 A.L.R.2d 1055 (1956) (concurring opinion by Mr. Justice Frankfurter). The federal Constitution leaves the courts of New York as free to liberalize the state’s policy on disclosure of Grand Jury minutes only on a prospective basis as New York’s legislature would be.
Affirmed.
. The state "court disregarded any issue relating to the untimeliness of the request, and so do we.
. We do not find it necessary to consider the alternate ground relied on by the District Court that because the Grand Jury testimony of the Elsons had no relationship to the forgery count upon -which the appellant received a concurrent sentence, a writ of habeas corpus could not issue. See United States ex rel. Smith v. Martin, 242 F.2d 701 (2d Cir. 1957); Ingenito v. State of New Jersey, 146 F. Supp. 717, and cases cited at 718 (D. N.J.), aff’d, 238 F.2d 935 (3d Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 1014, 77 S.Ct. 576, 1 L.Ed.2d 560 (1957).
. The New York Court of Appeals intended that the change in its policy of secrecy of Grand Jury minutes was not to be applied retroactively. The post-Rosario decisions have made it clear that there is no absolute right of reversal without a showing of actual prejudice. People v. Fiore, 12 N.Y.2d 188, 237 N.Y.S.2d 698, 188 N.E.2d 130 (1962); People v. Fasano, 11 N.Y.2d 436, 230 N.Y.S.2d 689, 184 N.E.2d 289 (1962); People v. Pereira, 11 N.Y.2d 784, 227 N.Y.S.2d 28, 181 N.E.2d 770, cert. denied, 370 U.S. 962, 82 S.Ct. 1619, 8 L.Ed.2d 829 (1962); cf. Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 341, 357, 83 S.Ct. 448, 9 L.Ed.2d 357 (1963).

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