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:
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 701, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 75-1434.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 20, 1978.
Thomas F. Levak (argued), of Carney, Probst, Levak & Cornelius, Portland, Ore., for petitioner.
David Fishback (argued), Washington, D. C., Lewis K. Scott (argued), Portland, Ore., for respondent.
Before ELY, TRASK, and TANG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order, published at 216 N.L.R.B. 45, requiring the Union to cease and desist from violating 29 U.S.C. § 158(e), by maintaining or enforcing Arti-ele XIX of its, current collective bargaining agreement. The Union had earlier filed a petition for review of the Board’s order, but that petition has been dismissed.
In our opinion, the issues in this case are the same as those decided in Acco Construction Equipment, Inc. v. NLRB, 511 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1975). The Board correctly found that Article XIX affects secondary employers such as manufacturers and equipment dealers because it requires post-warranty workers utilized in repair or service work to be covered by the collective bargaining agreement. See National Woodwork Mfrs. Ass’n. v. NLRB, 386 U.S. 612, 644-45, 87 S.Ct. 1250, 18 L.Ed.2d 357 (1967). The Union’s second contention is that, even if Article XIX is a hot cargo clause, it is permitted by the construction industry proviso of Section 8(e), 29 U.S.C. § 158(e). In the Union’s view, while the clause states that it covers work performed “at or near” the jobsite, the clause has actually been interpreted to mean “on” the jobsite, and as so interpreted, the clause falls within the proviso. We find this argument unpersuasive. The clause must be considered to mean what it says.
The order of the Board is enforced.
. Article XIX reads as follows:
Section 1. Employees covered by this Agreement shall be used on all maintenance, servicing and repair work except that machinery covered by a manufacturer’s written guarantee is not subject to this Agreement under the following conditions:
(a) No warranty shall run for a period of more than 1000 meter or working hours.
(b) The term “equipment” or “machinery” means a complete unit such as a shovel, crane, tractor, scraper, compressor, etc., and does not include component assemblies such as motors, transmissions, etc., which are installed in equipment. The intent of this paragraph is to stop the practice of chain warranties.
(c) Equipment which is rented, leased, or is on a rental purchase contract, in which ownership resides in the dealer, shall be considered to belong to the contractor for the purpose of this Article.
(d) On used equipment, a dealer’s warranty shall not exceed 300 hours.
(e) Warranty mechanics shall supervise such work at or near the job site and use the tools of the trade, assisted on all work by employees covered by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Warranty Mechanics shall not work at a ratio greater than two Warránty Mechanics for each Contractor Mechanic.
Section 2. It is expressly understood and agreed to by all parties hereto, that when the contractor’s equipment is repaired (work other than warranty work) at or near a job site by a manufacturer, equipment dealer or individual, the contractor shall be required to see that the terms and conditions of this Agreement are complied with. The Employers shall not use any method or means to circumvent the intent of this Article.
Section 3. If the Employer violates the above it will not be a violation of this Agreement for the Union to refuse to operate such equipment until an arrangement has been reached with the Union.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0