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:
Edgar Vernell FUTRELL, Appellant, v. Donald WYRICK, Appellee.
No. 83-1387.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 12, 1983.
Decided Sept. 15, 1983.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Rosalynn Van Heest, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for appellee.
L. Steven Goldblatt, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Before HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and JOHN R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Edgar Futrell appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is serving 45 years in the Missouri State Penitentiary for his role in a 1976 armed robbery. FutrelPs present appeal challenges the district court’s admission of a series of mugshots and the jury’s viewing of those mugshots at his trial. Futrell contends that admission of the mugshots violated his right to due process, his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, and his sixth amendment right to present evidence in his own behalf.
At the inception of Futrell’s trial, the government marked a series of nine photographs for identification. Each photograph included a frontal pose along with a profile pose and one of the nine was a photograph of Futrell. Several witnesses had previously picked out Futrell’s photograph from a spread of mugshots, thus the government argued that the photographs were relevant to the issue of identification. Defense counsel argued that introduction of Futrell’s mugshot would be far too prejudicial because it would be “tantamount to telling the jury that * * * [Futrell] had prior police contact.” The district court admitted the photographs as relevant to the issue of identification, and the government agreed not to pass the photographs to the jury or to refer to the photographs as “mugshots.” Near the end of the trial, over defense counsel’s objection, the jury was allowed to view the group of photographs.
[I] Habeas corpus relief will not be granted unless the error allegedly constituting a denial of due process was “of such magnitude that it fatally infected the trial and failed to afford petitioner the fundamental fairness which is the essence of due process.” Harris v. Wyrick, 634 F.2d 1152 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 916, 101 S.Ct. 1994, 68 L.Ed.2d 308 (1981). Thus, the standard to be applied in assessing the merits of a habeas corpus petition is much more stringent than the balancing of probity against prejudice that the district court engages in to determine the admissibility of mugshots as evidence at trial. United States v. Cannon, 525 F.2d 414, 420-21 (7th Cir.1975).
This court has recognized the potentially prejudicial effect of exposing a jury to mugshots. United States v. Watts, 532 F.2d 1215 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 847, 97 S.Ct. 131, 50 L.Ed.2d 119 (1976). In this case, however, the introduction of the mugshots into evidence cannot be said to have violated notions of fundamental fairness. The manner in which the photographs were introduced was unexceptionable. The photographs were never referred to as “mugshots” and all police data was removed from them. Further, the jury was allowed to view the photographs but was not allowed to handle them. While a separate presentation of frontal and profile poses would have been preferable, Watts, supra, 532 F.2d at 1217, we cannot say that failing to separate the poses rendered Futrell’s trial fundamentally unfair. In similar circumstances a dual view mugshot was held admissible where police data was deleted. United States v. Oliver, 626 F.2d 254, 263-64 (2d Cir.1980).
Futrell also claims that the admission of the photographs into evidence chilled the exercise of his fifth amendment right not to testify and his sixth amendment right to testify and present evidence. We cannot agree. Because the admissibility of the photographs had been entirely resolved before Futrell made his decision not to testify, his trial strategy was based on complete knowledge of the circumstances.
Although we may have decided the issue of admissibility of the mugshots differently had we presided at Futrell’s trial, we cannot say that the district court’s admission of the mugshots rendered Futrell’s trial fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief.

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