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, Appellee, v. Roy Rogers FAUNTLEROY, Appellant.
No. 73-1625.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 11, 1973.
Decided Dec 4, 1973.
Jay Tronfeld, Richmond, Va. [court-appointed], for appellant.
Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty., and Raymond A. Carpenter, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Roy Rogers Fauntleroy appeals from his conviction by the district court sitting without a jury on two counts charging him with knowingly making false statements in the purchase of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). Fauntleroy was sentenced to concurrent three-year prison terms on the two counts.
Fauntleroy contends on appeal that (1) the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence showing that he possessed the requisite intent to knowingly make a false oral or written statement with regard to his prior felony conviction, and (2) § 922(a)(6) violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment in that it arbitrarily and unreasonably discriminates against convicted felons as a class.
The evidence is uncontradicted that on two separate occasions, May 27, 1972, and November 9, 1972, Fauntleroy purchased a .25 caliber automatic pistol from White’s Auto Store in Tappahan-nock, Virginia. It is also uncontradicted that Fauntleroy was convicted in a Virginia state court on January 23, 1969, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. The record includes firearms transaction forms signed by Faultleroy on which negative answers were entered to the following question [8b]: “Have you been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year?” There is no question that the forms contain material false information and bear Fauntleroy’s signature.
Notwithstanding the forms, appellant contends that he was illiterate when he signed the forms and could not read the question pertaining to his criminal record. Even if he were unable to read the question, and the record does contain substantial evidence indicating that Fauntleroy was illiterate, his illiteracy did not preclude his understanding of the questions which were read aloud to him by the sales manager of the store, Thomas Chinault. Chinault, who sold both guns to Fauntleroy, stated that before asking Fauntleroy to sign the forms, he read them aloud in their entirety and told Fauntleroy that if he did not understand a question, he (Chinault) would explain it to him. According to Chinault, Fauntleroy indicated that he understood the questions. Chinault was satisfied that during both transactions Fauntleroy was able to freely communicate in the English language and did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug. Chinault’s testimony provided sufficient evidence on which the trier of fact could find that on two separate occasions Fauntleroy knowingly gave a false answer to the question concerning his previous conviction for a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year. United States v. Brown, 458 F.2d 375 (6 Cir. 1972); United States v. Sherman, 421 F.2d 198 (4 Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 914, 90 S.Ct. 1717, 26 L.Ed.2d 78 (1970).
Appellant argues that § 922(a)(6) violates the constitutional guarantee of due process in that it distinguishes felons from nonfelons. Section 922(a)(6) incorporates by reference other provisions of the Federal Gun Control Act, making it a crime for convicted felons to receive, possess, or transport in commerce any firearms. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); 18 U.S.C. § 922(b).
In United States v. Weatherford, 471 F.2d 47 (7 Cir. 1972), the court considered the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) which prohibits the interstate shipment of firearms by previously convicted felons and held that § 922(g) did not arbitrarily discriminate against previously convicted felons as a class. The court observed that “[i]t seems crystal clear that the purpose of Congress in enacting this legislation was to eliminate firearms from the hands of criminals, while interfering as little as possible with the law abiding citizen.” 471 F.2d at 51.
We agree with the court in Weatherford that the classification distinguishing felons from nonfelons for purposes of gun control legislation is reasonable.
This court has held that the Federal Gun Control Act, including specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), under which Fauntleroy was convicted, is constitutional. United States v. Cabbler, 429 F. 2d 577, 578 (4 Cir. 1970).
Accordingly, we dispense with oral argument and affirm.
Affirmed.
. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a) (6) provides that:
(a) It shall be unlawful—
(6) for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter.
. The case of United States v. Brown, 458 F.2d 375 (6 Cir. 1972), is nearly identical to the one at bar. Brown was convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). Gilbert, the store manager who sold the gun, testified that he asked Brown the questions [including 8(b)] from the firearms transaction form. Brown contended, as does appellant here, that he could not read and that the salesman did not read the questions to him. In upholding the conviction, the Sixth Circuit stated:
In finding appellant guilty .... the jury must have credited Gilbert’s testimony that he had asked Brown the required questions and that Brown had responded falsely. That determination of credibility was within the province of the jury. Accordingly, since there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict, it will be sustained. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). [458 F.2d at 376.]
The only difference in the cases is that this appellant was tried by the court without a jury, a distinction that would have no effect on the result in Brown.

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