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:
Jimmie C. BYRD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The M/V YOZGAT, Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee, Pensacola Stevedoring Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.
No. 27453.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 17, 1969.
Paul Shimek, Jr., Hahn, Reeves & Shi-mek, Pensacola, Fla., for appellant.
W. Spencer Mitchem, Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, James E. Hertz, Pensacola, Fla., for appellees.
Before GEWIN, ’ COLEMAN and DYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Byrd filed a libel to recover for personal injuries received while working aboard the M/V YOZGAT as a stevedore. The District Court found that Byrd was guilty of laches and dismissed the action. For us to reverse we would have to find that the District Court’s determinations that there was no excusable delay in bringing the action and that appellees were prejudiced by the delay are “clearly erroneous.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20; Tropicana Shipping, S. A. v. Empresa Nacional “Elcano”, 5 Cir. 1966, 366 F.2d 729; D/S Ove Skou v. Herbert, 5 Cir. 1966, 365 F.2d 341. We agree with the District Court and therefore affirm.
Byrd was injured on November 27, 1963, while employed as a member of a longshoremen’s crew loading large rolls of paper onto the vessel at Pensacola, Florida. This suit was not filed until July 20, 1968, more than four and one-half years after the injury and more than seven months after the running of the analogous Florida statute of limitations.
Laches is inexcusable delay in instituting the action plus prejudice to the libeled party as a result of the delay. E. g., Gardner v. Panama R. Co., 1951, 342 U.S. 29, 72 S.Ct. 12, 96 L.Ed. 31; Molnar v. Gulfcoast Transit Company, 5 Cir. 1967, 371 F.2d 639; McMahon v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 5 Cir. 1962, 297 F.2d 268; Vega v. The MALULA, 5 Cir. 1961, 291 F.2d 415. Byrd argues that the delay was excusable because (1) he was ignorant of the availability of an in rem remedy and (2) the first attorney whom he had engaged (and who obtained compensation for Byrd from the stevedoring company as a result of the injury) was uncooperative and would not give Byrd a release so that he could obtain other counsel. There is a conflict in the evidence as to what transpired between Byrd and his first attorney. However, there was testimony that Byrd and his attorney discussed the possibility of proceeding against the vessel but that it was determined that seeking compensation was a wiser course of action. Furthermore, ignorance of an available remedy is not an excuse for delay in bringing an action. Akers v. State Marine Lines, Inc., 5 Cir. 1965, 344 F.2d 217. In evaluating the allegation that difficulties with counsel accounted for the lapse of'time, there is no explanation by the appellant why he waited two years after the injury before he initially retained counsel, during which time he knew that he could have libeled the vessel. In any event, the District Court found that Byrd remained with his first attorney voluntarily, and this finding has support in the record.
We need not concern ourselves with the analogous statute of limitations, see, e. g., Akers v. State Marine Lines, Inc., supra, because we are convinced that respondent was prejudiced by the lapse of time. Phillips v. Springfield Insurance Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 418 F.2d 236. Byrd relied upon a naked allegation that five of the stevedores who were working with him at the time of his injury witnessed the accident and are still residing in the Pensacola area. However, none of these witnesses was called to testify at trial and Byrd made no proffer of their expected testimony. No report of the incident was made to any of the vessel’s officers and appellees had no notice of it or of the injury until this suit was filed. Hence, no investigation was made and no records obtained concerning the incident. Most of the officers and many of the crew who were on the ship at the time of the alleged accident have departed and their whereabouts are unknown.
Under the circumstances of this case the reason for delay was inexcusable and the prejudice to appellees manifest. This adds up to laches. Phillips v. Springfield Insurance Co., supra; McMahon v. Pan American World Airways, supra; Vega v. The MALULA, supra; Morales v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 5 Cir. 1953, 208 F.2d 218.
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: 1