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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Francis HILL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15045.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
July 2, 1963.
Delbert Lay, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
B. B. Guthrie, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn. (J. H. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, and BOYD and THORNTON, District Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying a motion to vacate sentence under Title 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255, and denying an alternative motion to correct illegal sentence under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Title 18 U.S.C.
Following indictment in the Eastern District of Tennessee in November 1952, for transporting a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce and for kidnapping, the District Court ordered a mental examination of the appellant, James Francis Hill, in accordance with Title 18 U.S.C., sec. 4244. As a result of this examination, Hill was committed to the custody of the Attorney General and placed in the United States Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri, until mentally competent to stand trial. He was later transferred from the Medical Center to Bridgewater State Hospital in Massachusetts.
On March 22, 1954, appellant, pro se, filed a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court at Boston, Massachusetts, alleging among other things his competency and ability to stand trial for the offenses charged against him in Tennessee. Following a hearing, District Judge Wyzanski of the Massachusetts Court entered an order directing appellant’s release unless removed to the Eastern District of Tennessee for trial within one week after entry of the order. After his removal, but prior to his trial at Chattanooga, Tennessee, the United States Attorney, not being satisfied as to appellant’s competency, moved for a judicial determination thereof. On June 2, 1954, District Judge Darr conducted a thorough hearing and found appellant to be mentally competent.to stand trial. Appellant was represented in the District Court by two competent court appointed attorneys. His trial consumed two days, and on June 4, a jury verdict of guilty was returned. Appellant was sentenced the same day. On October 1, 1954, he was returned to the Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri, and has been confined there since that time.
In the motion here under consideration, filed March 5, 1962, the appellant contends that he lost his sanity subsequent to the jury’s verdict and prior to imposition of sentence and because of that the sentence was invalid.
After review of the files and record in this case and prior motions of the appellant, the District Court denied the relief sought by the instant motion.
As a general rule, a petitioner under Section 2255 must be granted a full judicial hearing if he alleges sufficient facts to support a contention that his sentence or judgment rendered thereon is void or otherwise subject to collateral attack. However, his motion may be denied if the files and records of the case “conclusively show” that his claim lacks merit. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148; Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473. The sentencing court has discretion to ascertain whether the claim is substantial before granting a full hearing. In the exercise of this discretion all relevant material may be considered. The governing principle is stated in Sanders v. United States, supra, quoting from Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224 at 231, 44 S.Ct. 519 at 521, 68 L.Ed. 989:
“ * * * ‘each application is to be disposed of in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion guided and controlled by a consideration of whatever has a rational bearing on the propriety of the discharge sought. * *
A full and careful inquiry into the entire record and into all things having a rational bearing on the propriety of the relief here sought discloses conclusively that appellant’s motion is without merit.
The error alleged herein can not be raised by motion under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 at p. 430, 82 S.Ct. 468 at p. 472, 7 L.Ed.2d 417; Machibroda v. United States, supra.
There being no reversible error, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
. Hill v. United States, 6 Cir., 223 F.2d 699; Hill v. United States, 6 Cir., 238 F.2d 84; Hill v. United States, 6 Cir., 256 F.2d 957; Hill v. United States, 6 Cir., 268 F.2d 203; Hill v. United States, D.C., 186 F.Supp. 441; Hill v. United States, 6 Cir., 282 F.2d 352; Hill v. United States, 365 U.S. 841, 81 S.Ct. 806, 5 L.Ed.2d 808; Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417; Hill v. United States, 369 U.S. 808, 82 S.Ct. 640, 7 L.Ed.2d 556.

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