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:
NEGRON v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
February 9, 1929.
No. 2253.
George L. O’Hara, of Boston, Mass. (Pedro Amado Rivera and Aureliano Rivas, both of San Juan, Porto Rico, and Maurice J. Power, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
John V. Spaulding, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass. (John L. Gay, U. S. Atty., and Jesus A. Gonzalez, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Juan, Porto Rico, on the brief), for the United States.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. '
JOHNSON, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the District Court of the United States for the District of Porto Rico for the violation of the Act of Congress approved. June 7, 1924, e. 320, § 500, 43 Stat. 628, as amended by the Act of March 4,1925, e. 553, § 17, 43 Stat. 1311 (38 USCA § 551).
This act is known as the World War Veterans’ Act, and section 500 of the same, so far as material, is as follows:
“Except in the event of legal proceedings under section 19 of title I of this act, no claim agent or attorney except the recognized representatives of the American Red Cross, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars, and such other organizations as shall be approved by the director shall be recognized in the presentation or adjudication of claims under titles II, III, and IV of this act, and payment to any attorney or agent for such assistance as may be required in the preparation and execution of the necessary papers in any application to the bureau shall not exceed $10 in any one ease. * * * Any person who shall, directly or indirectly, solicit, contract for, charge, or receive, or who shall attempt to solicit, contract for, charge, or receive any fee or compensation, except as herein provided, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each and every offense shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment at hard labor for not more than two years, or by both such, fino and imprisonment.”
One Juan R. Perez, a veteran of the World War, had made application to the Veterans’ Bureau at Washington, D. C., for compensation, with the assistance of tho American Red Cross in San Juan, Porto Rico, but after a long delay he was led to apply to Negron for bis assistance. , The manager of the Veterans’ Bureau in San Juan, Porto Rico, received a communication from Washington in 1922 to examine tho applicant.
Porez testified that Negron assisted him in obtaining compensation, which he had been trying to obtain for seven years. Negron secured an affidavit from one Dr. Crespo, which was forwarded to Washington to be used in connection with the claim of Perez. Ultimately Perez received $3,755.70, from which Negron took $1,877.85, being 50 per cent, of the compensation received.
Perez enlisted in tho army of the United States in 1908 and was discharged on March 12, 1919. Ho afterwards was in several hospitals, and both of Ms legs were amputated to arrest tho progress of the disease with which he was afflicted.
The errors assigned are that the court refused to order a verdict for the defendant, failed to instruct the jury as requested by the defendant, and eired in tho admission of tesiimony.
It clearly appears from the testimony of Perez, and from a letter introduced in evidence, written to Perez by Negron December 17, 1927, that Negron assisted Perez in preparing’ his claim for compensation. In this letter the writer asked him to send his discharge and “give me some data that I need in order to start your claim.” He then gives specific directions in regard to the evidence which will be needed, and also directs Mm to get a medical certificate from Dr. Crespo, and to send all letters which he may have received from the Veterans’ Burean. It is clear that there was evidence to he submitted to tho jury, and that the request for a directed verdict was correctly denied.
Tho instructions which the court failed to give related to the papers which had been introduced in evidence. The court was asked to instruct the jury that in order to convict the defendant it was incumbent upon the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those papers were prepar ed and executed by his direction. In regard to the services rendered to Perez by Negron the court correctly charged the jury as follows:
“If you believe from tho evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the agent of Juan R. Perez in the matter of tho claim of the said Juan R. Perez for compensation under the World War Veterans’ Act of 1924, and that as such agent he furnished such assistance as was required in the preparation and execution of the necessary papers in regard thereto, and that ho received a greater sum than $10 therefor, then you must convict the defendant.
“The law reads: 'Assistance * * * in the preparation and execution of the necessary papers.’ That does not mean that tho defendant prepared all of the papers, or that he necessarily prepared any of the papers. If he gave his assistance in such preparation and execution,, that is all that is required.”
This instruction fairly covered tho request that was made.
It is also assigned as error that tho court erred in not instructing the jury that it was incumbent upon the government “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the papers introduced by the government in evidence were necessary papers in order to convict the defendant.” It is not clear from the record what papers are referred to in the requested instruction, but they evidently were the application of the soldier, his discharge, and affidavits showing his disability, all of which were forwarded to Washington. That these were “necessary papers” is shown by the fact that compensation was awarded, and that in the letter of Negron to Perez above referred to they were deemed to be necessary,
It is also assigned as error that the testimony of an attorney — Picornell—was admitted. His testimony related only to tho identification of certain incriminating letters which were left by Negron at the home of. Poj'oz for Ms signature, and wMch in substance stated that Negron had dealt honorably and _ faithfully with him, that he had made a mistake in asking’ for an investigation of his case, and that Negron had never received any compensation from him greater than that allowed by law and had done nothing in violation of the World War Veterans’ Act. These letters were introduced in evidence for the purpose of showing acknowledgment of guilt by Negron and an attempt on his part to evade its consequences. The court ruled that the evidence of Picornell did not violate the duty owed by Picornell as an attorney to Perez, and it is evident that its only purpose was to identify the letters which were brought by Perez to Mm. There was no error in tho admission of these letters ia evidence.
We find no merit in any of the errors assigned. The record clearly discloses that Negron received half of the amount paid to Perez, which was a violation of the World War Veterans’ Act; that when the cheek for the full amount of the compensation was received hy Perez he went to Negron with it, as the latter had instructed him to notify him upon its receipt; that at this time Negron had his discharge and other papers that came from Washington; that when he received the check he went to San Juan to cash it in order to pay Negron for his work — "the letters he wrote to Washington, and everything, I had to pay him for his services. I don’t know how many letters he wrote to Washington. I know that he wrote to Washington because I sent to him a doctor’s certificate of Dr. Crespo.” He also testified that he had received a letter from Negron stating that, instructions had been received from Washington to send him to the hospital.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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