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:
Ricardo CRUZ RIVERA, Petitioner, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent, Appellee.
No. 6449.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Feb. 24, 1965.
Ricardo Cruz Rivera, pro se, on motion for appointment of counsel, etc.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY, Senior Circuit Judge (by designation).
ALDRICH, Chief Judge.
The petitioner was indicted on March 1, 1962 on two counts for narcotic offenses. He was arraigned on March 16, pleaded not guilty, and was bailed. After July 27, however, he was confined because unable to make bail on an unrelated matter. Trial was set for October 2d. On October 1 petitioner appeared accompanied by counsel known to this court as able and experienced in criminal matters, who stated that petitioner wished to change his plea on Count 1. Counsel said in open court that he had explained to petitioner the nature of the charges, and the consequences under Count 1, namely, that for a first offense the penalty was 2 to 10 years, for a second 5 to 20 years, and for a third 10 to 40. Counsel stated that petitioner had understood his explanation, and that no promises had been made or coercion exercised. The petitioner responded that this was correct. He then changed his plea to guilty on Count 1.
On October 19 petitioner appeared for sentence. He orally acknowledged two prior narcotic convictions. Asked if he wished to say anything regarding sentence, he replied, “Only that I have used a great many drugs, and I have never been hospitalized, Your Honor. I have never been afforded treatment.” The court thereupon imposed the minimum sentence for a third offender, adding that since petitioner was represented to be a drug addict the court recommended that he be submitted to treatment and cure at such institution as the Attorney General should designate.
On October 2, 1964, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, the petitioner moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that his conviction be set aside, and that he be permitted to change his plea to not guilty, or that, in the alternative, the Attorney General be directed to furnish petitioner “treatments and cure of his drug addiction.” The petition was accompanied by a memorandum of law, but otherwise consists solely of petitioner’s brief affidavit, “I am a Dope Addict, and have been for a period of 12 years. I was under the influence of drugs at the time of my arrest, conviction and sentencing. I did not understand the nature and seriousness of the charges against me.” Petitioner added that he had been in the penitentiary for two years and had received no treatment. The district court denied the petition out of hand as without substance in the light of the record, in reliance upon Navedo Santos v. United States, 1 Cir., 1962, 305 F.2d 372. Petitioner now appeals, and requests the appointment of counsel.
We note at the outset that petitioner’s statement that he has received no treatment for his addiction has nothing to do with the validity, or viability, of his plea and conviction. His plea was in no way dependent thereon. The sole question is whether the petition is sufficient, in the light of matters of record, to warrant a hearing, or factual review, of petitioner’s eonelusory alie- '» gation with respect to his failure to “understand the nature and seriousness of the charges.”
We find the'petition wholly inadequate to raise an issue of fact. In addition to the unlikelihood that experienced counsel would fail to notice a personal condition such as petitioner alleges, and would permit him to plead, it is highly unlikely that petitioner, while in jail, would have access to narcotics so that he could have been “under the influence” of drugs on October 1, and again on October 19. Some basis for supposing this to be so, other than the bare statement that he was under the influence, must be furnished. It is even more unlikely that petitioner would have been so under the influence that, as a third offender, he would not have understood the nature and consequences of the offense, and of a plea of guilty, even had it not been fully stated to him in open court. There was a heavy factual burden upon petitioner.
Section 2255 proceedings are not provided as a pastime, but are serious matters. Petitions containing manifest perjury, or otherwise displaying manifest bad faith, should be brought to the attention of the parole authorities as part of the prisoner’s record. Petitions such as this one, containing nothing but unsupported conclusions, are not worthy of the attention of anyone. No purpose could possibly be served by the appointment of counsel. The appeal will be dismissed under our Rule 25(3) as devoid of merit on its face.

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