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:
THOMAS v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11857.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Jan. 21, 1954.
Mr. James S. Brocard, Washington, D. C. , for appellant.
Mr. William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty. at the time of submission, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant'was indicted on February 9, 1953, in a one-count indictment charging him with robbery, “being then and there armed with a pistol.” After he had entered a plea of guilty, the appellant was sentenced to serve a term of six years and eight months to twenty years. The appellant then moved to “vacate or correct illegal sentence.” That motion was denied by the District Court on June 19, 1953, but that court, the same day, granted leave to the appellant to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs. The sole issue on the appeal is whether the sentence imposed was greater than the maximum permissible by law. We think that it was.
D.C.Code Title 22, § 2901 (1951), under which the appellant was indicted, reads: ' •
“Whoever by force or violence, whether against resistance or by sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching, or by putting in fear, shall take from the person or immediate actual possession of another anything of value, is guilty of robbery, and any person convicted thereof shall suffer imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than fifteen years.” [Emphasis supplied.]
D.C.Code Title 22, § 3202 (1951), provides :
“If any person shall commit a crime of violence in the District of ■ Columbia when armed with or having readily available any pistol or other firearm, he may, in addition to the punishment provided for the crime, be punished by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years. . . . ” [Emphasis supplied.]
D.C.Code Title 22, § 3201 (1951), defines “crime of violence” as follows:
“ ‘Crime of violence,’ as used in this chapter, means any of the following crimes, or an attempt to commit any of the same, namely: Murder, manslaughter, rape, mayhem,, maliciously disfiguring another, abduction, kidnaping, burglary, housebreaking, larceny, any assault with intent to kill, commit rape, or robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault with intent to commit ' any offense punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary.”
It will be observed from the foregoing-that under Section 3201 the crime of robbery is not included within the definition of “crime of violence” although assault, with intent to commit .robbery is. There-.fore the additional penalty of five years’' imprisonment imposable under Section 3202 upon one who commits a crime of violence armed with or having readily available any pistol or other firearm cannot lawfully be imposed upon persons convicted of robbery “being then and there armed with a pistol.” According ly, as the sentence imposed upon appellant exceeds the fifteen-year maximum permissible term under Section 2901, we are obliged to set aside the order denying appellant’s motion to vacate sentence and to remand the ease to the District Court for resentencing under the provisions of D.C.Code Title 22, § 2901 (1951).
It is so ordered.

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