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, Appellee, v. Arthur Thatcher ROBERTS, Appellant.
No. 71-1655.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
July 11, 1972.
Burton W. Sandler, Towson, Md., and William E. Seekford, Perry Hall, Md., on brief for appellant.
Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty., and Gilbert K. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief for appellee.
Before CRAVEN and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges, and BLATT, District Judge.
BLATT, District Judge:
This is an appeal from a conviction on five counts of a six-count indictment charging violations of certain federal firearms laws. Defendant-appellant was convicted on the first three counts involving possession of unregistered firearms in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), on count five charging him with transporting firearms in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) — count four alleging a violation of this section having been dismissed by the court at the conclusion of the government’s case —and on count six involving a violation of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a), which section proscribes possession of firearms that have been “in or affecting interstate commerce” (United States v. Tuck (4 Cir. slip opinion #71-1977, 3/8/72 by one having been previously convicted of a felony. The defendant was sentenced to a term of eighteen months on each count, said sentences to run concurrently. On Motion of the parties, the questions raised in this appeal were submitted to the court on briefs without oral argument. We affirm the convictions on counts one, two, three, and five of the indictment and we reverse the conviction on count six.
On March 16, 1970, defendant, who was then a licensed firearms dealer, pled guilty to one count of an earlier indictment which charged him with the sale of a firearm to a person known by him to be a non-resident of his home state of Virginia, this sale being in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(b) (3). As a result of that felony conviction, defendant was thereafter prohibited from possessing any firearms and his license as a firearms dealer, which expired a few months later, was not renewed. On September 21, 1970, a search warrant was obtained from a United States Magistrate and was executed at the residence of the defendant, resulting in the seizure of sixty-two firearms from defendant’s automobile, garage, house, and briefcase. It was upon such seizures that the indictment here involved was based.
Defendant urges reversal of his conviction on the five counts of the indictment and posits his contentions on various theories, the most substantial of which are:
1. That the trial judge 'erred in refusing to grant defendant’s Motion for Transfer in that said trial judge, having presided at defendant’s earlier guilty plea proceeding, should have recused himself.
2. That the search warrant which was obtained on September 21, 1970, was defective for failure to set forth facts sufficient to constitute probable cause and, therefore, the fruits of that search should have been suppressed.
3. That count five of the indictment should have been dismissed because the Essex frames, which were seized in the search of September 21, 1970, wei’e not firearms within the meaning of the governing statute.
4. That the conviction based on count six should be reversed because the government failed to allege or prove that the firearms found in defendant’s possession were in or affecting interstate commerce.
Since we deem all other grounds and objections raised by the defendant on this appeal to be insubstantial and without merit, we find nothing to warrant reversal or remand based thereon.
Considering defendant’s arguments in the order above set forth, we perceive no evidence of prejudice or bias on the part of the trial judge and we are not persuaded that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying defendant’s Motion for Transfer. United States v. Ramsey, (4th Cir. slip opinion #71-1716, 4/21/72).
Defendant contends, since the affidavit supporting the search warrant did not allege that the firearms purported to be in defendant’s possession had at any time been in or affecting interstate commerce, that this search warrant was improvidently issued and the weapons— the evidence obtained pursuant to the execution of the warrant — were illegally seized and, therefore, should not have been admitted at the trial. The search warrant, however, comported with the law as it existed at the time of its issuance and, as such, was clearly valid. (United States v. Hanon (8 Cir.) 428 F.2d 101, cert. den. 402 U.S. 952, 91 S.Ct. 1608, 29 L.Ed.2d 122).
Defendant next contends that the Essex frames which he transported from Virginia to Maryland are not firearms within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a) (3) (A) and (B). We find, however, ample evidence in the record, when such record is viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to support the jury’s finding of guilty on this count.
Finally, defendant urges reversal of his conviction on count six of the indictment because the government did not allege or prove that the possession of these firearms was in or affecting interstate commerce pursuant to the requirements of United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1972). Since it is obvious that the government failed to prove the requisite nexus with interstate commerce, and this the government admits, we reverse the conviction as to count six. United States v. Tuck, supra, United States v. Martin (4 Cir. slip opinion #71-2122, 3/27/72).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

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