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:
Jesse W. TOLEFREE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 77-1046.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 30, 1977.
Jesse W. Tolefree, pro se.
John O. Stansbury, of Eskanos & Klein-man, Oakland, Cal., for respondent-appellee.
Before ELY, WRIGHT and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On August 27, 1976 Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford), a Delaware corporation licensed to do business in California, sued Tolefree, a citizen of California, in a state superior court for $5,530.01 when Tolefree defaulted on his truck purchase installment sale contract with Ford.
On September 22, 1976. Tolefree filed a petition for removal of the case to a federal district court alleging diversity of citizenship. After removal was granted on September 30,1976 Tolefree, without service on Ford, moved that the district court dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, the amount in controversy being less than $10,-000.
On November 5, 1976 Ford moved that the district court remand the case to the state court on the grounds of improvident removal and lack of federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The district court granted Ford’s motion for remand and declined to hear Tolefree’s motion to dismiss for lack of the required amount in controversy, for lack of diversity of citizenship, or absence of federal question.
The order for remand is not appealable to this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). See Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 345-52, 96 S.Ct. 584, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976); In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 535 F.2d 859, 860, aff’d en banc, 542 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1976); Robertson v. Ball, 534 F.2d 63, 64-66 (5th Cir. 1976).
Therefore, dismissal of the appeal is appropriate.
. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides:
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs . . .
. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides:
If at any time before final judgment it appears that the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction, the district court shall remand the case, and may order the payment of just costs. A certified copy of the order of remand shall be mailed by its clerk to the clerk of the State court. The State court may thereupon proceed with such case.
. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) provides:
An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.
The exception made in § 1447(d) as to a case removed pursuant to § 1443 applies only to a civil rights case, which the instant case is not.

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