Task: songer_appbus

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 "private business and its executives". 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.

DUFFY, Senior Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal of a conviction alleging violation of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312. The evidence showed that on July 9, 1966, defendant negotiated with one Gene Kimerer, a Buick-Pontiac automobile dealer in Beloit, Kansas. They agreed upon an automobile to be purchased by defendant and the price thereof. Because the automobile had to be readied for delivery, defendant borrowed a 1966 Buick from Kimerer in order to make an alleged urgent business trip to Oberlin, Kansas. Defendant agreed to return this Buick after concluding his business in Oberlin, but he never returned. He and the 1966 Buick disappeared.
The defendant drove the “borrowed” automobile around Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for several days and came in contact with a number of people who subsequently testified at his trial.
On July 15, 1966, agents of the FBI arrested the defendant. Trial by jury was commenced on July 17, 1967. After the government rested its case, defendant raised the defense of insanity. He read excerpts from several psychiatric reports and called a psychiatrist to testify as a witness. In rebuttal, the United States produced nine lay witnesses who had personal contact with the defendant between July 9 and July 15, 1966, and a psychiatrist. The lay witnesses testified that the defendant appeared quite normal to each of them.
In instructing the jury, the trial court instructed respecting defendant's defense of insanity by applying the well-known M’Naghten test without adding thereto any volitional test. On this appeal, the government concedes that the insanity-instruction as given was error.
In United States v. Shapiro, 383 F.2d 680 (7 Cir., 1967) this Court, sitting en banc, decided that the American Law Institute (ALI) definition as to insanity was the correct rule, but substituted “wrongfulness” for “criminality” so that paragraph 1 of the definition reads: “A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.” We also stated in Shapiro at page 687: “We emphasize that as to all cases other than Shapiro’s, the new rule, requiring instructions to reflect the ALI definition applies prospectively only, i. e., to trials commenced after the date of this decision.
The instructions in the case at bar were given prior to our decision in Shapiro. Hence, in reversing, we do not rely on the Shapiro decision. However, in Shapiro, we pointed out, 383 F.2d 683-684: “The Supreme Court did not say in Davis [Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373, 17 S.Ct. 360, 41 L.Ed. 750] that a pure M’Naghten definition, concerned only with cognitive capacity, i. e., whether defendant had capacity to know the nature and quality of his acts and distinguish between right and wrong, would have been prejudicial. It is usually assumed, however, that the court would so hold, and that the federal, courts are committed to some type of definition in which lack of volitional capacity is an alternative element * *
“This court has not specifically approved a particular definition, but it is clearly committed to some type of definition involving consideration of volitional capacity even where there is cognitive capacity.”
On the basis of our previous decisions in United States v. Williams, 372 F.2d 76 (7 Cir., 1967); United States v. Cooks, 359 F.2d 772-773 (7 Cir., 1966) and United States v. Cain, 298 F.2d 934, 936 (7 Cir., 1962), we hold that the M’Naghten instruction given in the ease at bar was reversible error.
The remaining question raised is that error was committed when the trial court denied defendant’s application for a judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the evidence. We hold the Court’s ruling in this respect was correct.
We wish to express our thanks to Ronald R. Polan, Esq., of the Milwaukee Bar, court-appointed counsel on this appeal, for his meritorious services.
Judgment reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Reversed.
. The trial court instructed the jury that insanity means such a perverted and deranged condition of mental and moral faculties as to render a person either incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong or incapable of knowing and understanding the nature and quality of tlio act he is committing.
. The date of the Shapiro decision was August 24, 1967. Defendant Jenkins’ trial commenced July 17, 1967.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 0