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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie HAMMOND, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 85-1676.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 13, 1987.
Travis D. Shelton, Travis Dale Jones, Lubbock, Tex., for Weddell.
Warren Burnett, Odessa, Tex., Larry Zinn, San Antonio, Tex., for Hammond.
Sidney Powell and Michael R. Hardy, Asst. U.S. Attys., Helen M. Eversberg, U.S. Atty., Antonio, Tex., James Blankinship, Asst. U.S. Atty., Midland, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
ON OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT REGARDING THE PREVIOUS REMAND OF THIS COURT
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, RUBIN and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
In our prior opinion in the above case filed October 1, 1986 (800 F.2d 1404), the conviction of defendant Willie Hammond, Jr. was held in abeyance. This Court requested the court below to conduct a hearing to determine whether the conduct of the government in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and to ascertain whether a new trial should or should not be ordered.
On November 17, 1986, on a motion for rehearing filed by the government, the original Order in the opinion of October 1st was amended (804 F.2d 1343) and this Court directed the district court to broaden the scope of the hearing to provide that the government be allowed at an adversary hearing to show that there was no prosecu-torial misconduct on the part of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and, in particular U.S. Attorney Thomas Joseph McHugh and the FBI agents involved in this case.
The court below was directed to make renewed findings on whether or not there was prosecutorial misconduct and if the court should continue to find that there was such misconduct, then he would proceed to determine whether such conduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The hearing requested by this Court was held by the court below on December 29 and 30, 1986. The record of that hearing and a memorandum opinion of the court below has been filed with this Court.
The court below found that the U.S. Attorneys involved in this case told Mrs. Hammond that she did not have to testify but at no time did they advise her, in words that she could understand, of her right as a spouse not to testify against her husband in a criminal court proceeding as indicated in our prior opinion.
The court had instructed U.S. Attorney McHugh and others that he wanted to be notified immediately when Mrs. Hammond arrived at the courthouse. He found that his order was violated by the failure of U.S. Attorney McHugh to inform the FBI agents to let him know when Mrs. Hammond arrived at the courthouse and that she stayed at the FBI office three or four hours before the court was notified that she was there.
The court below made extensive findings with regard to the circumstances under which Mrs. Hammond and her children were taken from their home in Odessa, Texas, for Mrs. Hammond to appear the following day in El Paso during the trial of Willie Hammond, Jr. This procedure and action on the part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the court found, was reprehensible and misconduct.
We cannot say that this finding is incorrect. The court below, in determining whether or not Willie Hammond’s defense was prejudiced to such an extent that it rendered his trial unfair, held that unfortunately for appellant Hammond the “die was cast” when Mrs. Hammond initially contacted the police department of the City of Odessa. This led to an interview by FBI agents which was not solicited by the United States Government, but did result in a 302 being prepared by the FBI agents that conducted the interview. He further held that once this 302 came into existence, if Mrs. Hammond had taken the stand for her husband, it could have been used by the prosecutors to cross-examine her.
In his memorandum opinion the court below found that misconduct above noted did occur. The court further found that this misconduct, though reprehensible, did not deprive Mr. Hammond of a fair trial and that unfortunately for appellant Willie Hammond, Jr., Mrs. Hammond’s conduct between the first and second trial precluded her ever taking the witness stand in his behalf. Since he found that any governmental misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the court below entered an order denying a new trial for appellant Willie Hammond, Jr.
Being satisfied that appellant Willie Hammond, Jr.’s trial was not prejudiced by any governmental misconduct and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we now AFFIRM the conviction of Willie Hammond, Jr.

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