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:
JOE WAY CHONG, Appellant, v. Luther WEEDIN, as Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of Seattle, Washington, Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 7, 1926.)
No. 4862.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington.
S. A. Keenan, of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
Thos. P. Revelle, U. S. Atty., and C. T. McKinney, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUD-KIN, Circuit Judges.
GILBERT, Circuit Judge.
The appeal in the present case is devoid of merit. The appellant was denied his application for admission to the United States as the foreignbom son of Jew Doo Ngow, who had been admitted on May 21,1909, as the son of Jew Sew, an American-bom Chinese. Permission to land was denied on two grounds: First, that his father had- never resided in the United States-prior to the applicant’s birth; and, second, that the evidence failed to show'that the applicant was the son of his alleged father. Jew Doo Ngow, on his admission in 1909, testified that he was not married, had never been married, and had no children. His alleged father testified to the same effect. Three of bis alleged brothers, who had been admitted, also testified that Jew Doo Ngow was never married.
In view of those statements so made under oath, it is not surprising that the board of special inquiry were unable to believe that on December 21, 1904, Jew Doo Ngow was married in China at a time when he was less than 17 years of age, and that three sons were bom to him there before he came to this country in 1909. His diverse explanations of his pri- or testimony given under oath in 1909 were found by the special board of inquiry fanciful and unconvincing, and the evidence of Jew Quan who testified that he was present at the marriage of Jew Doo Ngow in China was found by the board an absurd fabrication. Clearly the alleged father of the appellant committed perjury, either at the time of his admission into the United States or at the time of the hearing here in question, and we are not convinced that the board were wrong in reaching the conclusion that the f ormer testimony was true and that the latter was perjured.
The judgment denying the writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

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