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:
Lazaro PEREZ and Migdalia Perez, individually and as parents and natural guardians of Vladimir Perez, a minor, Appellants, v. THE BAHAMAS, a foreign state.
No. 80-1215.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued March 2, 1981.
Decided April 28, 1981.
Arnold R. Ginsberg, Washington, D. C., with whom James E. Burk, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
William A. Bradford, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Edward A. McDermott and Allan D. Windt, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before MacKINNON and WALD, Circuit Judges, and AUBREY E. ROBINSON, Jr., District Judge.
Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292(a) (1976).
AUBREY E. ROBINSON, Jr., District Judge:
This is an appeal from the District Court’s, 482 F.Supp. 1208, dismissal of a tort action against the Government of the Bahamas. The lower court held that it lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (1976), which is predicated upon the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611 (1976). The FSIA exception relied upon by Appellant is clearly inapplicable to this case. Accordingly, we affirm.
I
Appellant Perez was a minor aboard a United States fishing vessel in the territorial waters of The Bahamas and was severely injured by a gunshot when Bahamian governmental gunboats fired on the fishing vessel. Suit was commenced against the Government of The Bahamas in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for damages resulting from Appellant’s injury. The case was transferred to the District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to the special venue provision applicable to actions brought against a foreign state. Id. § 1391(f)(4). The District Court construed our statute to hold that The Bahamas was immune from suit since Appellant had failed to show how the facts of the case triggered any of the statutory exceptions to sovereign immunity. As a result, the District Court dismissed Appellant’s complaint since it lacks subject matter or personal jurisdiction when a foreign sovereign is immune from suit. Id. § 1330.
The provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act principally at issue in this case provides:
(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—
(5) not otherwise encompassed in paragraph (2) above, in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or .damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tor-tious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment;
28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5) (1976) (emphasis added). A related provision is the definitional section of the FSIA, which specifies that
[t]he ‘United States’ includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Id. § 1603(c).
Appellant would have us hold that the shooting incident in this case occurred “in the United States” since, he argues, it occurred within the 200-mile wide Fishery Conservation Zone established by Congress in the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1882 (1976). Alternatively, he argues that the shooting occurred within an area subject to the special maritime jurisdiction of the United States established for purposes of criminal law enforcement, 18 U.S.C. § 7 (1976), and thus occurred “in the United States.”
II
We need not reach the question of whether territory subject to the limited jurisdiction of the United States for circumscribed purposes of fishery conservation or of law enforcement is territory of the United States, sufficient to strip a foreign sovereign of its immunity from tort actions in United States Courts. The shooting incident involved in this case occurred less than a half mile from an island of The Bahamas, the Great Isaac Cay, in Bahamian territorial waters. Even if Appellant’s theories are accepted, the tort did not occur in the United States. The Bahamas is immune from suit in our courts for torts occurring outside the United States. But see 28 U.S.C. § 1605(aX3).
The Secretary of State, pursuant to the authority given him by the Fishery Conservation Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1822 (1976), declared the limit of the Fishery Conservation Zone, insofar as The Bahamas is concerned, to be the median line halfway between the United States and The Bahamas. 42 Fed.Reg. 12937-38 (1977). It is undisputed that the events in this case took place well beyond the median line, in the territorial waters of The Bahamas and outside the Fishery Conservation Zone. This placement by the Secretary of State of the area in question beyond the United States Fishery Conservation Zone is dispositive of Appellant’s principal contention. Appellant’s argument that a tort committed in the Fishery Conservation Zone is a tort “occurring in the United States” is thus not supported by the facts of this case.
Perez also relies upon 18 U.S.C. § 7(1) but that statute defines the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” only for purpose of the title dealing with United States crimes. Also, the only waters subject to the United States’ special maritime jurisdiction are “high seas”, 18 U.S.C. § 7(1) (1976), and territorial waters of a nation are not part of the “high seas”. See, e. g., Convention on the High Seas, Article I, T.I.A.S., 13 U.S.T. 2312; Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 569 F.2d 330, 338 n.14 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996, 1005 n.15 (5th Cir. 1977). Cf. United States v. Flores, 289 U.S. 137, 53 S.Ct. 580, 77 L.Ed. 1086 (1933) (acts committed by U.S. citizens on U.S. vessels in territorial waters of another sovereign are subject to criminal jurisdiction of U.S. Courts). Appellant’s injuries were not suffered on the high seas but, rather, were inflicted within Bahamian territorial waters. Therefore, the special maritime jurisdiction is in no way involved here and we need not reach the question of its applicability to jurisdictional determinations under the FSIA.
Appellant has failed to demonstrate how Section 1605(a)(5), or any of the statutory exceptions to sovereign immunity, are applicable to The Bahamas in this case. The Government of The Bahamas is entitled to the sovereign immunity granted it by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1604 (1976), and the lower court was correct in dismissing this action.
. It is doubtful that territory falling within the Fishery Conservation Zone suffices as territory of the United States within the meaning of the FSIA. The Fishery Conservation Management Act explicitly provides that it was Congress’ intent to “maintain without change the existing territorial or other ocean jurisdiction of the United States for all purposes other than the conservation and management of fishery resources.” 16 U.S.C. § 1801(c)(1) (emphasis added). The language of the statute makes it clear that it was the intent of Congress to extend United States jurisdiction beyond our territorial seas only for the purpose of conserving and managing scarce marine resources. See United States v. Postal, 589 F.2d 862, 880 n.30 (5th Cir. 1979); Note, Fishery Conservation & Management Act of 1976: An Accommodation of State, Federal and International Interests 10 J. Int’l Law 703, 735 (1978). Indeed, if the Fishery Conservation Zone is used as a device to obtain personal and subject matter jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns in civil suits unrelated to the purposes of the Fishery Act, international law may be violated. Publicist Ian Brownlie observed:
Excessive and abusive assertion of civil jurisdiction could lead to international responsibility or protests at ultra vires acts. Indeed, as civil jurisdiction is ultimately reinforced by procedures of enforcement involving criminal sanctions, there is in principle no great difference between the problems created by assertion of civil and criminal jurisdiction over aliens.
1. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 299 (1979).

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

Choices:

Answer: 3