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:
Thomas T. SWISHER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 17372.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Jan. 13, 1964.
Wyman Wickersham, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., Clifford M. Spottsville, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., Abraham Newrow, Lieutenant Colonel, JAGC, Office of Judge Advocate General, Dept, of Army, Washington, D. C., and Joseph J. DeFrancesco, Captain, JAGC, Office of Judge Advocate General, Dept, of the Army, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before VOGEL, BLACKMUN and RIDGE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The conviction of appellant at court-martial having been affirmed by higher authority, he filed petition for writ of habeas corpus in the District Court, rais? ing the question of his mental competency to stand trial on the charges preferred against him. The District Court dismissed appellant’s petition for a writ, without requiring response to be made thereto by the Warden of the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, at Springfield, Missouri, where appellant is presently confined. We granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis “ * * * for the purpose of settling the question of Swisher’s right to a hearing on his mental capacity, and of attempting to put an end to his continuous applications for a writ in the District Court and his repetitive applications for a writ of mandamus” and previous request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
We have carefully reviewed the record in this appeal in the light of the ex parte records before us. Our conclusion is that appellant has set forth therein some factors which give facial indication of a possible issue existing, that his mental competency to stand trial may not have been constitutionally adjudicated at his court-martial. We cannot presently dispose of that possible issue with finality on the basis of the record before us. That the issue of “mental competency at the time of the offense and at the time of trial are entirely different questions of fact” is cogently recognized by the District Court in its opinion, supra, 211 F. Supp. at 1. c. 918.
In Hayes v. United States, 8 Cir., 305 F.2d 540, at 543, we had occasion to say:
“In Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835, the Supreme Court summarily vacated a District Court’s denial of a § 2255 motion and the Court of Appeals’ affirmance thereof, * * * where the question of trial competency had been disposed of on the basis of the motion to vacate, the record of the trial proceedings, and, some affidavits appearing in the court files. The case was remanded to the District Court for a hearing on the competency question.”
A like remand was made by us in the Hayes case, supra. That a 2255 motion has affinity to an application for writ of habeas corpus by non-federal court prisoners is recognized in Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407.
In Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, at 1. c. 139, 73 S.Ct. 1045, at 1. c. 1047, 97 L.Ed. 1508, it is said:
“The statute which vests federal courts with jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus from persons confined by the military courts is the same statute which vests them with jurisdiction over the applications of persons confined by the civil courts. But in military habeas corpus the inquiry, the scope of matters open for review, has always been more narrow than in civil cases.”
“(T)he scope of matters open for review” in the instant habeas corpus proceeding is limited by appellant to the issue of his competency to stand trial before his court-martial. His previous and instant application for a writ of habeas corpus have been self-prepared. He is now represented by retained counsel. Seemingly, as far as we can presently ascertain, appellant has exhausted all provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C.A. Chap. 47) for making collateral attack against his conviction and sentence on the ground that he was mentally incompetent to stand trial. Cf. Hiatt v. Brown, 339 U.S. 103, 70 S.Ct. 495, 94 L.Ed. 691; Gusik v. Schilder, 340 U.S. 128, 71 S.Ct. 149, 95 L.Ed. 146 (1950). Whether a “fair determination by the military tribunal” has been made as to that issue is a question that cannot, and should not, be resolved by us on the present record. Cf. Whelchel v. McDonald, 340 U.S. 122, 71 S.Ct. 146, 95 L. Ed. 141 (1950).
The order dismissing appellant’s latest application for writ of habeas corpus is hereby vacated. This case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with due process of law.
. Swisher v. United States, 211 F.Supp. 917 (W.D.Mo.1962).
. In the case at bar we appointed Wyman Wiekersham, Esq, of Kansas City, Missouri, Bar, to represent appellant as an indigent defendant. Compatible with his obligation as a member of the Bar of this Court to so act, Mr. Wiekersham willingly accepted such appointment. Subsequent thereto, appellant’s parents made arrange-meats to retain Mr. Wiekersham and paid him a fee. Before accepting the same, he informed the Clerk of this Court of bis retainer. As a consequence, we revoked his in forma pauperis appointment. He now appears in this appeal as retained counsel.

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