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:
Oscar Henry BAKER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 19246.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
July 3, 1969.
Rehearing Denied July 28, 1969.
Robert G. Duncan, of Pierce, Duncan, Beitling & Shute, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Calvin K. Hamilton, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee; Charles E. French, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief.
Before VOGEL, LAY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant-defendant, Oscar Henry Baker, appeals from judgments of conviction, in a jury-waived trial on February 8, 1968, on the following counts of a multiple-count indictment: (I) Conspiracy to sell marijuana, amphetamine, and LSD, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 371; (II) the sale of amphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 321 (v) (2) and 331 (q) (2); (III) possession for the purpose of sale of amphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 331 (q) (3); and (V) the transfer of marijuana without a written order on a form issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4742(a). Appellant was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for each of the convictions under counts I, II and III and five years’ imprisonment for conviction under count V. All sentences were to be served concurrently.
Appellant’s counsel limited his oral argument in this court to count V and suggested that the appeal of the convictions under counts I, II and III be considered moot because appellant had substantially served his one-year concurrent sentences under those counts. We find it improper to dismiss as moot appellant’s appeal of his convictions under counts I, II and III, see Sibron v. New York, 1969, 392 U.S. 40, 50-58, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917, and have accordingly examined the entire record for error.
Appellant contends that the evidence as to all counts was insufficient to support conviction; that he was a “tool” of a government agent; that his conduct, if illegal, was condoned; and that he was entrapped. Appellant did not testify and he offered no testimony in his own behalf. The trial transcript consists solely of the testimony of agents of the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control and exhibits which they obtained either from or through appellant. It yields no support to appellant’s contentions. The convictions under counts I, II and III are therefore affirmed.
In Leary v. United States, 1969, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57, and United States v. Covington, 1969, 395 U.S. 57, 89 S.Ct. 1559, 23 L.Ed.2d 94, the Supreme Court reversed convictions under 26 U.S.C.A. § 4744(a) because that section of the Marijuana Tax Act violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. We think it clear that there is no significant distinction for purposes of the Fifth Amendment privilege between 26 U.S.C.A. § 4744(a) and 26 U.S.C.A. § 4742(a), upon which appellant’s count V conviction is based. Although appellant did not assert his right against self-incrimination at the trial, we deem it only “just under the circumstances” to reverse his conviction on count V through application of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2106. See, Harris v. United States, 8 Cir., 1968, 390 F.2d 616, 617. Cf., our opinions recently filed in Becton v. United States, 8 Cir., 412 F.2d 1005 and Miller v. United States, 8 Cir., 412 F.2d 1008.
It is so ordered.
. Appellant was found not guilty of violation of count IV, which charged the acquisition of marijuana without payment of the tax thereon, in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4744(a) (1).
. The sentence for count V is the minimum under 26 U.S.C.A. § 7237(b).
. After appellant had served his sentences under counts I, II and III and upon his pro se motion, this court granted appellant’s release on his own recognizance.

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