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:
Earn DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17690.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit
May 27, 1968.
William C. Kibbey, Grayson, Ky., for appellant.
Moss Noble, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., George I. Cline, U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., on brief for appellee.
Before McCREE and COMBS, Circuit Judges, and WEINMAN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court affirming the Appeals Council of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which denied appellant’s application for disability insurance benefits and a declaration of disability under the Social Security Act, §§ 223, 216. The only question is whether appellant has the ability “to engage in any substantial gainful activity” within the meaning of § 223(d) (1) (A) of the Act.
Appellant filed an application with the Secretary in 1960, alleging disability from May 1, 1958. The hearing examiner found that, although appellant could not return to strenuous labor, his impairments were not so severe as to render him unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity and denied the application for benefits. Appellant’s request for review of the hearing examiner’s decision was denied by the Appeals Council. Review was obtained in the District Court and the case was remanded to the Secretary with directions that findings be made as to “what plaintiff can do, and what employment opportunities are there for a man who can do only what plaintiff can do.”
A hearing was held following remand and the appellant gave further testimony; a vocational consultant also testified. The consultant listed several jobs available which he believed appellant could perform and for which he could meet employment requirements. He based his statements on appellant’s age, work experience, impairments, and limited education. The hearing examiner found that appellant had been unable to engage in substantial gainful activity with any degree of regularity since May, 1958. It was his recommended decision that appellant be found-by the Appeals Council to have established that he is entitled to a period of disability and to disability insurance benefits. The recommended decision of the hearing examiner was rejected by the Appeals Council. The decision of the Appeals Council that appellant did not qualify for benefits was reviewed by the District Court and approved. This appeal followed.
The Appeals Council’s decision cited 20 CFR § 404.1502(h), which provides that work activity may be “substantial” though it is on a part-time basis and is less responsible or gainful than that in which the claimant was engaged before the onset of his impairment. Appellant does not contest the validity of the regulation. The Council made the following finding:
“The claimant had the remaining functional capacity to perform * * * many light jobs enumerated by the vocational consultant * * * and a reasonable number of such jobs were available, not only nationally but in claimant’s geographical area, throughout such period.”
Courts are bound by the findings of the Secretary if they are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Appellant’s only meritorious argument against the vocational consultant’s suggestions as to work activity which he can perform is that, while the jobs may be available nationally, there is no evidence they are available in the vicinity of appellant’s residence.
During the pendency of this action, § 223 of the Social Security Act was amended in 1967 to read as follows:
“[A]n individual * * * shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.”
The amendment applies to this action. Public Law 90-248, 81 Stat. 821, § 223 (e).
There is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Appeals Council regardless of this amendment to the Act. In any event, the amendment has nullified appellant’s argument that there is no evidence of gainful work opportunities for him in the area in which he lives. The test under the 1967 amendment is whether such work exists in the national economy and “work which exists in the national economy” is defined in the amendment to mean “work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country.”
The Secretary’s decision being supported by substantial evidence, the judgment of the District Court 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