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 "fiduciaries". 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:
Arthur LEVINE, Appellant, v. Emily Kathryn LACY, Appellee.
No. 9792.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 5, 1965.
Decided April 15, 1965.
John A. Beck, Washington, D. C. (A. Andrew Giangreco, Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellant.
J. Frederick Larrick, Winchester, Va. (Marshall A. Martin, Jr., Herndon, Va., and Wilbur C. Hall, Leesburg, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge, and STANLEY, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant commenced this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia seeking to permanently enjoin the enforcement of a state court judgment. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The District Court dismissed the complaint, with leave to amend, on the ground that the amount in controversy did not exceed, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $10,-000.00.
Thereafter, appellant filed an amended complaint asserting the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1343 as an additional ground for jurisdiction for the reason that the entry of the state court judgment “deprived him of the rights of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws secured to him by the Constitution of the United States.” Upon motion of the appellee, the amended complaint was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had “not asserted the deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the federal Constitution entitling him to a retrial * * * of the issues determined by the State courts, or any equitable grounds justifying the entry of an order permanently enjoining the collection of the default judgment obtained against him in the Circuit Court of Lou-doun County, Virginia.” We affirm the order of the District Court.
Prior to the institution of the action in the District Court, appellant had sought, without success, to have the judgment set aside in the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, Virginia. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed, Levine v. Lacy, 204 Va. 297, 130 S.E.2d 443 (1963), and the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari, Levine v. Lacy, 375 U.S. 932, 84 S.Ct. 330, 11 L.Ed.2d 264 (1963), and a petition for rehearing, 375 U.S. 982, 84 S.Ct. 333, 11 L.Ed.2d 264 (1964).
The historical background of this litigation, and a comprehensive discussion of the state procedural rules and regulations involved, will be found in Levine v. Lacy, 204 Va. 297, 130 S.E.2d 443 (1963). A reading of this decision will reveal that the questions presented to the state court involved only matters dealing with state law and procedure. The same questions were presented to the District Court, where federal jurisdiction was properly declined.
The order of the District Court dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed.
Affirmed.

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

Choices:

Answer: 99