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:
WIMBERLY v. UNITED STATES.
No. 9889.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 15, 1941.
Rehearing Denied June 12, 1941.
See, also, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 904.
Ben F. Roberts, Frank J. Looney, and Albert P. Garland, all of Shreveport, La., and Robert H.- Wimberly, of Arcadia, La., for appellant.
Malcolm E. Lafargue, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Shreveport, La., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and Mc-CORD, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
In a pleading entitled “information and order to show cause”, filed by the United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, appellant was charged with contempt of court. In substance, the information recites that appellant and four other named persons were indicted for using the mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud; that the case was fixed for trial on November 18, 1940, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Lousiana, at Shreveport; that on November 16, 1940, appellant, in the presence of the said court and so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, corruptly endeavored to influence and impede one J. Arthur Tooke, a petit juror duly served and summoned for petit jury service in said court, beginning on November 18, 1940, in the discharge of his duties, and did endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in said court. In a summary proceeding, without the intervention of a jury, which was not waived, the District Judge found appellant guilty of contempt and sentenced him to serve a year and a day in a penitentiary. This appeal followed.
In support of the charge it was shown that Edward B. Gillon and John Tooke, a cousin of J. Arthur Tooke, went to the home of J. Arthur Tooke, near Zwolle, La., on November 17, 1940, and John Tooke spent several hours with him, later reporting to Gillon that he was “all right.” Gillon also interviewed J. Arthur Tooke and reached the same conclusion. There was evidence tending to show that appellant put in motion a train of events leading up to this interview but he was not present. It is unnecessary to further review the evidence.
It is certain that if there was an attempt to influence J. Arthur Tooke so as to obstruct the administration of justice it was near Zwolle, some 60 miles from the court, which was not in session that day.
The court derives its jurisdiction and power to punish contempts committed so near the presence of the court as to obstruct the administration of justice from § 268, Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 385. Reviewing the history of the section and the jurisprudence, in Nye and Mayers v. United States et al., 61 S.Ct. 810, 85 L.Ed. -, decided April 14, 1941, the Supreme Court held that the words of the statute “so near thereto” must be considered as having a geographical and not a causal meaning. The gist of the decision is that if .the misconduct does not disrupt quiet and order or actually interrupt the court in the conduct of its business the offender may not be summarily punished for contempt.
Since misconduct charged occurred about 60 miles from the court, it follows that the judgment must be reversed on the authority of the above cited case. However, it is but fair to the District Judge to say that under the decision in Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U.S. 402, 38 S.Ct. 560, 62 L.Ed. 1186, and other similar decisioiis, all overruled by the Nye case, supra, he had jurisdiction to proceed as he did. Of course, the Nye case was decided after the judgment in the case at bar was entered and the District Judge necessarily was not advised of the impending change in the jurisprudence.
Reversed.

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