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 v. AMERICAN BAG & PAPER CORP., Appellant.
No. 79-1836.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued Oct. 12, 1979.
Decided Nov. 21, 1979.
Edward C. German (argued), Philip A. Ryan, James M. Marsh, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
John H. Shenefield, Asst. Atty. Gen., Barry Grossman, Andrea Limmer (argued), At-tys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., Walter Devany, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before ADAMS, ROSENN and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
We are asked in this appeal to reverse the Unites States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and allow American Bag & Paper Corp. (“American Bag”) to withdraw its plea of nolo contendere to a charge of violating section 1 of the Sherman Act. The appeal is predicated upon the contention that the district court, in imposing interest in addition to the fine agreed upon as part of a plea bargain, rejected the terms of the plea bargain and, that thus, under the terms of the agreement itself and Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(4), American Bag is entitled to withdraw its plea. American Bag makes this contention even though on remand the district court vacated the interest portion of its original judgment. We reject American Bag’s contention and affirm the judgment of the district court.
I.
On June 1, 1977, American Bag tendered a plea of nolo contendere to a one-count indictment charging it with a violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (1976). The plea was offered pursuant to the terms of an agreement entered into between the Government and American Bag. Under the terms of that agreement, American Bag agreed to tender a plea of nolo contendere and cooperate fully with the Government. The Government in turn agreed to recommend a fine of $500,000 to be paid in annual installments of $50,000 each over a ten year period. The agreement further provided that “if [the court] should for any reason determine not to follow the Government’s recommendation the corporation would be afforded the opportunity to withdraw the plea of nolo contendere.”
From the record it appears that both American Bag and the Government carried out their respective obligations under the agreement and neither of the parties contends to the contrary. The dispute, however, concerns the action of the district court.
At the time of sentencing the district court imposed the fine provided by the plea bargain — $500,000 to be paid in ten annual installments of $50,000 each. In addition, however, the court imposed interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of six percent per annum. It is the question whether the imposition of interest constituted a rejection of the plea agreement which forms the subject matter of this appeal.
American Bag argues that the initial imposition of interest, when the plea agreement itself was silent on the matter of interest, amounted to a rejection of the plea agreement. Thus, it asserts that the court triggered the provisions of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(4) (and of the plea agreement itself) which provide that withdrawal of a plea offered pursuant to the terms of a plea bargain shall be allowed when the court rejects the terms of the bargain. Further, American Bag argues that the court explicitly committed itself to allow withdrawal in such an event when it stated: “[I]f the court believes that the recommended sentence is inadequate, the court will allow the entry of a plea of nolo contendere to be withdrawn on behalf of American Bag & Paper Corporation.”
After imposition of sentence American Bag filed an appeal with this court without first having moved in the district court for withdrawal of its plea. Before the appeal was heard, American Bag filed a motion before the district court asking, inter alia, that the court vacate the interest portion of its judgment. Because of the pending appeal, the district court denied that motion without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. In our consideration of that first appeal we noted the absence of a motion for withdrawal of the plea in the district court. United States v. American Bag and Paper Corp., No. 78 — 2329 (3d Cir. March 29, 1979) at 3. More importantly, however, we observed that the record was not clear whether the district court had determined that the sentence recommended pursuant to the plea agreement was inadequate and thus whether it “viewed its action as a rejection of the plea bargain agreement.” Id. at 4. Accordingly, we remanded to the district court for clarification.
On remand the district court denied American Bag’s motion to vacate the sentence and withdraw its plea. The court, however, did vacate the interest portion of its judgment but retained the principal of the fine — $500,000 payable in ten annual installments. Although it expressed its belief that the original imposition of fine with interest was “more adequate,” the court specifically found that the fine of “$500,000 payable in ten equal installments and without interest is adequate.” Thus, the court’s earlier addition of interest was not intended as a rejection of the plea agreement. Instead, the court indicated that, given the plea agreement’s silence as to interest, it had felt free to impute interest on the basis of accepted principles of commercial law. As we have indicated, the court ultimately abandoned this position.
II.
Generally, when there has been a breach of a plea bargain by the Government the district judge has the discretion to determine the appropriate remedy. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). Thus the district court may choose to conform the sentence to the provisions of the plea bargain or allow withdrawal of the plea. Under the provisions of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(4), a court must allow withdrawal of a plea when it chooses to reject the terms of a plea bargain. When, as here, the court does not intend to reject the terms of a plea bargain but, nevertheless, imposes a sentence allegedly inconsistent with the terms of that plea bargain, it appears consistent with the provisions of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(4), to allow the district court, in the first instance, the opportunity to correct its own error. Thus, the district court, upon appropriate motion, may choose the conform the sentence to the terms of the plea bargain or allow withdrawal of the plea. In this case the district court chose the former course and we find no error.
It is true that American Bag was put to the time and expense engendered in its first appeal. Although American Bag was not precluded from immediately appealing to this court, we perceive no prejudice to it in the exercise of that right. The need for such an appeal might have been eliminated had American Bag first made a timely motion to the district court. In fact, the district previously observed that had such a motion been made, the matter might well have been rectified at that time. Moreover, during the course of its appeals American Bag has had the use of the money payable under the first installment of the fine. Thus, after the district court’s action on remand, American Bag’s position was substantially the same as originally contemplated under the terms of the plea bargain.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
. Our holding in United States v. Crusco, 536 F.2d 21 (3d Cir. 1976), is therefore inapposite.
. In its memorandum denying the motion, however, the district court stated:
[Tjhe court is also of the belief that the plea agreement between American and the Government was ambiguous as it relates to the issue of interest. Accordingly, the court, if it had jurisdiction, would be prepared to allow American’s motion and to remove the imposition of interest .
. But for the decision in the first appeal by a different panel of this court, Judge Adams would conclude that the initial imposition of interest did amount to a rejection of the plea bargaining agreement, and that the district court so understood its action. The record indicates that after the district court added to the recommended fine of $500,000 a 6% interest provision, counsel for American Bag promptly reminded the trial judge that the agreement American Bag reached with the Government “excluded interest. [The fine] was to be interest free.” The district court immediately replied: “Well, 1 understand that, but I have imposed the sentence as I have outlined. I understand that was the recommendation. It was the recommendation to the Court but the Court’s sentence as outlined will stand.” Nevertheless, the panel in the prior appeal concluded that it could not “determine whether the court viewed its action as a rejection of the plea bargaining agreement.” Accordingly, inasmuch as the determination by the prior panel stands as the law of this case, see, e.g., Antonioli v. Lehigh Coal and Navigation Co., 451 F.2d 1171, 1178 (3d Cir. 1971); A. S. Kreider Co. v. United States, 117 F.2d 133, 135 (3d Cir. 1941), Judge Adams recognizes that the present panel is bound by it.
. As in our consideration of the prior appeal in this case,
[W]e need not decide whether a court’s failure to adhere to the letter of the government’s Rule 11(e)(1)(B) sentence recommendation constitutes a “rejection” so as to activate Rule 11(e)(4). Compare United States v. White, 583 F.2d 819 (6th Cir. 1978) (failure to follow sentencing recommendation constitutes a rejection) with United States v. Henderson, 565 F.2d 1119 (9th Cir. 1977), cert, denied, 435 U.S. 955 [,98 S.Ct. 1586, 55 L.Ed.2d 806] (1978) (failure to follow recommendation not a rejection) and United States v. Savage, 561 F.2d 554 (4th Cir. 1977) (same).
United States v. American Bag and Paper Corp., No. 78-2329 (3d Cir. March 29, 1979) at 4 n.l.
. See note 2 supra.
. Sentence was originally imposed on September 20, 1978. The first installment was due within 60 days thereafter.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0