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:
TWINING v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 323.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 1, 1936.
For opinion below, see 32 B.T.A. 600. Watson Washburn, of New York City (Perkins, Malone & Washburn, of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.
Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Francis I. Howley, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
SWAN, Circuit Judge.
This proceeding relates to the petitioner’s income tax for the year 1930. The dispute involves the amount of gain realized on a sale of real estate acquired by the taxpayer under the will of his father who died in 1923, survived by his widow and two sons. By his will the father left the residue of his estate, which included real estate on Long Island, to trustees, to pay the income thereof to his widow during her life, and upon her death the residue was devised one-half to the petitioner, with limitations over if he should not then be living, and one-half to trustees for the other son. The widow died in 1926, survived by the two sons. In 1930 the petitioner sold his half interest in the Long Island real estate. The sole issue in dispute is whether the proper cost basis for computing his gain is the value of the real estate at the date of his father’s death or its value at the date of his mother’s death. The commissioner and the board took the former date; the petitioner contends it should be the latter.
Section 113(a)(5) of the Revenue Act of 1928 (45 Stat. 818, 819, 26 U.S.C.A. §113 note) reads in part as follows: “(5) Property Transmitted at Death. If personal property was acquired by specific bequest, or if real property was acquired by general or specific devise or by intestacy, the basis shall be the fair- market value of the property at the time of the death of the decedent. If the property was acquired by the decedent’s estate from the decedent, the basis in the hands of the estate shall be the fair market value of the property at the time of the death of the decedent. In all other cases if the property was acquired either by will or by intestacy, the basis shall be the fair market value of the property at the time of the distribution to the taxpayer.” The question at issue turns upon whether the first sentence or the last sentence of the above-quoted portion of the section applies to the facts at bar.
By the law of New York, where the land was located, the petitioner took under the will of his father a vested remainder even though enjoyment and possession were postponed until the termination of his mother’s equitable life estate and his interest was subject to being divested if he should die before her. New York Real Property Law (Consol.Laws, c. 50) § 40; Moore v. Littel, 41 N.Y. 66, 80. Indeed, it is not disputed that the petitioner took a vested remainder under the will of his father.
In Warner v. Commissioner, 72 F.(2d) 225, this court held that the test for determining when a remainder was “acquired,” within the meaning of the Revenue Act, is whether it is vested or contingent. It is true that the revenue act there under consideration was the 1926 act, but the problem of what was meant by the word “acquired” was not different from what it is under the 1928 act. Literally, therefore, the first sentence of the above-quoted section 113(a)(5) applies; the property “was acquired by general * * * devise.” Had the remainder been contingent, then the last sentence of the section would have been applicable. Such was the case of Lane v. Corwin, 63 F.(2d) 767 (C.C. A.2).
The petitioner asks us to repudiate the distinction between vested and contingent interests as the test for when property is “acquired” by devise and to substitute the "substantial ownership” test expounded in the General Counsel’s Memorandum 10260 (XI-1 CB 79), although the latter test was subsequently abandoned in G.C.M. 1-1893 (XIV-1 CB 202). In Warner v. Commissioner, 72 F.(2d) 225, 227, we refused to accept the substantial ownership test, expressing the view that it was so vague as to be even less satisfactory than to differentiate between vested and contingent remainders “in spite of the casuistry involved” in such differentiation. We are still of that opinion. Nor do we think we are constrained to apply the other test in construing the 1928 act merely because Congress re-enacted the section two months after the “substantial ownership” rule of interpretation was expounded in G.C.M. 10260. This is not a case of long-continued administrative interpretation and application such as was deemed persuasive of legislative adoption by reenactment of the statute in Brewster v. Gage, 280 U.S. 326, 327, 50 S.Ct. 115, 74 L.Ed. 457, and in Bliss v. Commissioner, 68 F.(2d) 890, 892 (C.C.A.2), affirmed 293 U.S. 144, 151, 55 S.Ct. 17, 79 L.Ed. 246, 97 A.L.R. 207.
Order 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