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:
Bobby CLARK, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee.
No. 88-1589.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 14, 1988.
Decided Dec. 19, 1988.
Anthony W. Bartels, Jonesboro, Ark., for appellant.
Lawrence M. Meister, Dept, of HHS, Baltimore, Md., for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States Senior District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by special designation.
PER CURIAM.
Bobby Clark appeals from a final judgment entered in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas affirming the decision of Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), denying Clark’s claim for a closed period of disability insurance under §§ 216(i), and 223 of Title II of the Social Security Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423, and Supplemental Security Income benefits under §§ 1602 and 1614(a)(3)(A) of Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381a and 1382c(a)(3). Clark v. Bowen, No. J-C-82-20 (E.D.Ark. Jan. 27, 1988). For reversal, Clark contends that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the Secretary’s decision that his impairments were not severe. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Clark filed an application for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income alleging that he became disabled on August 15, 1978, due to a back injury and nervousness. The application was denied after an evidentiary hearing by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and that decision was approved by the Secretary. The district court has remanded the case twice since the initial decision by the Secretary. The first remand was for further findings on Clark’s subjective allegations of pain and his credibility. The second remand was for reevaluation of Clark’s application in light of the revised mental impairment standards promulgated pursuant to the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5); 20 C.F.R. § 404 Subpt. P, App. 1. Benefits were denied in both instances.
On remand, the ALJ found that Clark’s impairments did not significantly limit his ability to perform basic work-related activities and that his impairments were therefore not severe. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 2297, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987). He further found that Clark’s subjective allegations of pain were not credible. The ALJ concluded that Clark was not under a disability at any time during the time period in question. His decision was based on the fact that Clark had made some wages since 1979, that his ailments could be controlled by medication, that his daily activities included walks in the park and driving a car, and that a psychiatric examination indicated that Clark was “oriented in all spheres” and that he did not appear to have any significant psychiatric condition.
We have considered the entire record and find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Secretary’s decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. Rule 14.
. The Honorable Elsijane T. Roy, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
. The time period during which Clark alleges he was disabled and for which he seeks benefits ran through May 1983.

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