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:
G.W. GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. COLLINS, Director, Institutional Division Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 91-6203.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 9, 1991.
Cynthia B. Lloyd, Houston, Tex., for petitioner-appellant.
Robert S. Walt, Atty. Gen. Office, Robert S.Walt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
I.
G.W. Green requests a stay of execution of his death sentence imposed by a Texas jury, a certificate of probable cause to enable him to appeal the district court’s denial of application of writ of habeas corpus and stay of execution, and appointment of counsel. Green is scheduled for execution on November 12, 1991, after midnight and before sunrise. This is Green’s first federal habeas corpus review in this court. On September 25, 1991, his two state habeas petitions were denied. On October 2, 1991, his execution was scheduled for November 12, 1991. However, his federal habeas petition was not filed until November 6, 1991. He presented seven issues to the district court in his original petition:
1. The jury could not give expression to his mitigating evidence as required by Penny v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989).
2. Green was denied effective assistance of counsel in five particulars: counsel failed to interview and call all witnesses essential to his contention that his confession was coerced and involuntary; counsel failed to properly pursue a claim of indi-gency in support of a court-appointed investigator, handwriting expert, and independent psychiatrist for evaluation; counsel failed to obtain rulings on certain pretrial rulings; counsel failed to preserve any error of the trial court in not placing the full confession of Green’s co-defendant before the jury; and, finally, counsel failed to make certain evidentiary objections.
3. There was no finding by the state courts as required by Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982).
4. Green was deprived of rights secured by the fifth and fourteenth amendments by certain interrogation techniques of the state.
5. The fact-finding procedures in state habeas were inadequate.
6. Under Texas law, neither the state trial court nor the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals were authorized to issue findings of fact.
7. The federal district court failed to conduct a required evidentiary hearing.
Petitioner moved in district court for reconsideration of the court’s ruling that the state had furnished a psychiatrist. In the motion for reconsideration, Green urged that the appointed psychiatrist considered only competency to stand trial and not legal insanity. Green argues that the denial violated Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). The district court denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the state granted the only request made by Green.
II.
We deny the request for stay of execution, and decline to issue a certificate of probable cause. We do so for essentially the reasons stated in the district court’s order filed November 8, 1991, and its order denying the petition for rehearing also entered on November 8, 1991, with three exceptions. First, we agree that petitioner has no colorable claim of a Penry violation. We reach that conclusion for reasons other than those stated by the district court. Specifically, we do not rest upon the district court’s analysis under Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990). Rather, we are persuaded that the jury could give expression to all of Green’s evidence in mitigation in answering the question of future dangerousness or deliberate acts, or both.
Second, we also reject the Enmund claim for reasons other than those relied upon by the district court. Enmund requires a state determination of the requisite participation by an accused. The jury’s answer to the question in the sentencing phase of whether Green acted deliberately meets the Enmund requirement.
Third, we agree with the district court’s rejection of Green’s claim that Texas denied him appointment of a psychiatrist in violation of Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), but we emphasize a different reason. Green has never made the “preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense was likely to be a significant factor at trial.” Id., 105 S.Ct. at 1091.
Finally, we note that the motion for ap-pointment of counsel in fact requests either a substitution of counsel or the addition of counsel who have been informally assisting the court appointed counsel. Petitioner has at all times been represented by either retained or appointed counsel. We find no reason to disturb the ruling of the district court.
III.
We observe that although this death sentence was given by the jury more than 14 years ago, this is petitioner’s first federal habeas review by this court, as earlier noted. The application for a stay of execution and a certificate of probable cause is DENIED.

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