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:
BARNES v. UNITED STATES.
No. 14179.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 13, 1954.
James H. Garcia, Albert M. Garcia, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellant.
Jack D. H. Hays, U. S. Atty., William A. Holohan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.
BONE, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a verdict of guilty on four counts charging appellant with bringing into the United States certain aliens who had not been duly admitted by an immigration inspector of the United States. The questions presented are (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty and (2) whether the lower court erred in admitting testimony of conversations conducted in Spanish as against appellant who could not understand that language.
Although there was some conflict in the evidence, the jury resolved these conflicts against appellant and chose to follow appellee’s view of the evidence. The aliens who were illegally brought into this country testified that they were approached in the town of Mexicali by one Raul. (Appellant testified that Raul was with him on this trip to Mexico.) Raul brought the witnesses to appellant and another man, where they negotiated and planned entry for these aliens, into the United States, for a price to be paid to the Americans. Raul acted as translator in all of the communications between the Mexicans and the Americans. Later Barnes and the other American drove the Mexicans to San Luis, Mexico, and obtained some money from the Mexicans. The Mexicans were driven across the international boundary at a place other than the legal place of entry. Appellant drove one of the cars as far as San Luis, and was with the group again on the United States side of the boundary, in Yuma, Arizona.
Notwithstanding some conflicts in evidence, and appellant’s own testimony which is in direct conflict, there is ample evidence, aside from evidence of conversations, which supports the verdict of guilty.
The evidence of conversations carried on between Raul and the Mexicans, in Spanish, was not objected to at the trial on the ground here urged, i. e., that appellant cannot be bound by a conversation which he cannot understand. Since the trial court was not given an opportunity to correct any error which was present in this situation, we would not ordinarily consider the point here. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules 51 and 52(a), 18 U.S.C.A. However, appellant urges that substantial injustice will result if he is not permitted to raise this point, for the first time, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 52(b).
Appellant brought the interpreter into Mexico and was satisfied to have Raul, his own companion, act as interpreter. He made no effort at the trial to show why be should not be bound by that interpreter. Moreover, the entire record (even excluding the testimony as to what was said) contains sufficient proof that appellant participated and was paid for his part in the illegal bringing of aliens into the United States. However, we have considered the error here urged and we cannot agree that the admission of the testimony introduced any substantial prejudice against appellant. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 52 (b); United States v. Kirby, 2 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 101; Himmelfarb v. United States, 9 Cir., 1949,175 F.2d 924; Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 181; Samples v. United States, 5 Cir., 121 F.2d 263.
Judgment 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