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 Ray McDONALD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 79-5256
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 13, 1979.
Arthur Parker, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellant.
Herbert H. Henry, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., Circuit Judges.
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a conviction for jumping bail. James Ray McDonald was indicted in February 1976 on counterfeiting charges. He was released on bail but failed to appear for trial. Warrants for his arrest were issued. A year and a half later, while using the alias of Robert James Parks, appellant was arrested, identified as being McDonald, and charged with bail jumping in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3150. Appellant now claims that his conviction on that charge should be reversed since (i) the District Court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an allegedly illegal arrest, and (ii) the Government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was the same McDonald named in the counterfeiting indictment. We reject both claims and affirm.
Appellant first claims that his arrest was illegal. He was arrested while driving away from a residence which Florida police officer Timothy Robinson had under surveillance. Officer Robinson had seen a FBI wanted flyer on McDonald and received information from a reliable informant connecting McDonald with that residence. Robinson had also obtained a physical description, a photograph, and the fingerprints of McDonald, as well as a list of aliases. Officer Robinson had furthermore obtained a National Crime Information Center (NCIC) printout showing that there was an outstanding warrant for McDonald’s arrest. Appellant asserts that the NCIC printout was too unreliable a source of information concerning the existence of an outstanding warrant, resulting in a lack of probable cause to arrest.
It is clear that Officer Robinson had probable cause to arrest appellant under Florida law, so long as the officer reasonably believed that appellant was the subject of a federal arrest warrant. United States v. Bowdach, 5 Cir., 1977, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168; State v. Outten, Fla., 1968, 206 So.2d 392, 397. While NCIC printouts are not alone sufficient evidence to permit conviction, the cases uniformly recognize that NCIC printouts are reliable enough to form the basis of the reasonable belief which is needed to establish probable cause for arrest. United States v. Palmer, 9 Cir., 1976, 536 F.2d 1278, 1283 (NCIC information was decisive factor in establishing probable cause for arrest); United States v. Davis, supra (dictum). Cf. United States v. Hines, 10 Cir., 1977, 564 F.2d 925, 927-28 (dictum, but holding that NCIC information qualifies as corroborative evidence), cert. denied, 1978, 434 U.S. 1022, 98 S.Ct. 748, 54 L.Ed.2d 770; United States v. Godwin, 4 Cir., 1975, 522 F.2d 1135, 1136 (NCIC report admitted for purpose of refreshing recollection). Furthermore, there was unimpeached testimony at appellant’s trial establishing that NCIC information “has proved reliable in the past as an indicator [of] who in fact is wanted as a fugitive.” Having seen both a recent NCIC printout and a FBI wanted flyer on McDonald, Officer Robinson clearly had probable cause to effect the arrest in this case.
Appellant secondly attacks the sufficiency of the evidence introduced to link him with the McDonald named on the counterfeiting indictment and bail jumping warrant. At trial, Officer Robinson, the Clerk of the District Court of the District in which McDonald had been indicted, and a federal agent all testified that “the defendant” was the subject of the counterfeiting indictment and bail jumping warrant. Although none of those witnesses were directly asked to testify concerning appellant’s identity, the offering of proof by the Government was similar to that found sufficient in Rodriguez v. United States, 5 Cir., 1961, 292 F.2d 709, 710. Here and in Rodriguez, the Government did more than merely introduce the previous indictment. Cf. Gravait v. United States, 10 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 498, 499 (copy of judgment in previous conviction is, by itself, insufficient). Moreover, appellant’s defense counsel was called as a witness and testified that he had been present with “the defendant” — meaning obviously the defendant then on trial — at the arraignment for the counterfeiting indictment, and that “the defendant” had not been present on the day of trial in that case. Based upon Rodriguez, appellant’s insufficiency of the evidence argument fails. This argument, moreover, is raised for the first time on appeal. Certainly plain error has not been shown. See F.R.Crim.Proc. 52(b).
AFFIRMED.
. Florida’s standard of probable cause for a lawful arrest is the same as that required by the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Ullrich, 5 Cir., 1978, 580 F.2d 765, 769.
. United States v. Davis, 6 Cir., 1978, 568 F.2d 514, 516 (NCIC printout); United States v. Johnson, 5 Cir., 1969, 413 F.2d 1396, 1398 (national computer report). Cf. United States v. Graham, 6 Cir., 391 F.2d 439, 448 (local police record), cert. denied, 1968, 393 U.S. 941, 89 S.Ct. 307, 21 L.Ed.2d 278.
. The defense counsel was not, of course, testifying as to any privileged matter. No objection as to this testimony was raised at trial.

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