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:
Henry F. REDDINGTON, Defendant, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 5049.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Jan. 11, 1956.
Writ of Certiorari Denied March 26, 1956.
See 76 S.Ct. 556.
Henry F. Reddington, pro se, on brief for appellant.
Arthur I. Weinberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., with whom Anthony Julian, U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellee.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On March 13, 1953, the present appellant, with others, was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for conspiracy to transport stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. At the same time two additional indictments were returned against appellant, and others, charging substantive offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2312. Appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on March 18,1953.
After a trial commencing June 21, 1955, the jury returned verdicts of guilty against appellant, and sentences were imposed pursuant to the verdicts on August 17, 1955. The present appeal is from these judgments of conviction.
At first, the district court granted appellant leave to prosecute an appeal in forma pauperis. Later, upon leave granted by this court, the district court held a hearing for the purpose of reconsidering its allowance of appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and on October 3,1955, the district court revoked its prior order in this respect. In an accompanying memorandum, the district court concluded as follows:
“I find that the appeal is frivolous. I certify that in my opinion the defendant is not proceeding in good faith even if that involves the question of his state of mind. I believe that he enjoys legal proceedings, that this appeal affords him something to relieve the monotony of his present state court incarceration, and that he is merely playing for the outside chance. The allowance of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is revoked and said motion is denied.”
On the record before us, the only point that might be considered as properly presented is that the district court was in error in denying a motion for dismissal of the indictments on the ground that appellant had been denied his right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. We are unable to conclude that there was undue delay in bringing appellant to trial, or that appellant suffered any substantial prejudice on account of the interval of time which elapsed between the date of the indictments and the commencement of the trial. The district court committed no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the indictments, as is made clear by the memoranda on the point filed by Judge Wyzanski and by Judge Aldrich. See, generally, Shepherd v. United States, 8 Cir., 1947, 163 F.2d 974; Pietch v. United States, 10 Cir., 1940, 110 F.2d 817, certiorari denied 1940, 310 U. S. 648, 60 S.Ct. 1100, 84 L.Ed. 1414; Worthington v. United States, 7 Cir., 1924, 1 F.2d 154, certiorari denied 1924, 266 U.S. 626, 45 S.Ct. 125, 69 L.Ed. 475.
The judgments of the District Court are 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