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:
Raymond H. COPP, Jr., Petitioner, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent, Appellee.
No. 92-1012.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Heard June 5, 1992.
Decided July 14, 1992.
Alfred D. Ellis with whom Loren Rosenzweig and Cherwin & Glickman were on brief, for petitioner, appellant.
Sally J. Schornstheimer, Atty., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, with whom James A. Bru-ton, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary R. Allen, Charles E. Brookhart, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, and Wayne A. Budd, U.S. Atty., were on brief for respondent, appel-lee.
Before CYR, Circuit Judge, RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and PIERAS, District Judge.
Of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation.
PIERAS, District Judge.
This appeal stems from the issuance of an administrative summons by the Internal Revenue Service in the course of investigation into the income tax liability of appellant Raymond H. Copp for the years 1985 through 1989. The district court granted an IRS motion for summary enforcement of the summons. We affirm.
The summons, which the IRS issued pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602, directed Goldman Sachs & Co., a third-party recordholder, to appear, give testimony and produce documents. Appellant filed a motion to quash the summons, contending primarily that it was improperly served after the IRS had referred the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. The district court rejected appellant’s contention and granted the Government’s motion for summary enforcement. Judge Maz-zone found, based on an affidavit filed by the IRS agent directing the investigation, that no criminal referral had been made and that the summons was issued in good faith to make a civil determination of Copp’s federal income tax liability.
Prior to its amendment in 1982, 26 U.S.C. § 7602 authorized the IRS to issue summonses “[f]or the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any persons for any internal revenue tax ..., or collecting any such liability.” In United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 98 S.Ct. 2357, 57 L.Ed.2d 221 (1978), the Supreme Court considered the limits of this authorization. The Court noted that since Congress created a tax enforcement system with interrelated criminal and civil elements, in enacting Section 7602 it did not intend that the IRS’s subpoena power in a given investigation be limited merely because of the presence of a criminal purpose. Id. at 310-11, 98 S.Ct. at 2364-65. The Court held, however, that the IRS’s subpoena power did not extend to investigations in which it had abandoned the good faith pursuit of all of its congressionally authorized civil purposes. 437 U.S. at 316-17, 98 S.Ct. at 2367-68.
As a result, after LaSalle a summonee could effectively block the enforcement of an IRS summons if he could show that it was issued during an investigation in which the IRS had abandoned the pursuit of a civil tax determination or collection. In setting forth the reach of its holding, the LaSalle Court found that an abandonment clearly occurs (and a summons may not be issued) after the IRS refers an investigation to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. Id. at 311, 98 S.Ct. at 2365. In addition, aware of a potential for abuse where the IRS delays its referral to the Justice Department in order to gather evidence for a subsequent criminal prosecution, the Court found that an abandonment also occurs where the IRS has “in an institutional sense” abandoned its pursuit of a civil tax liability determination and is instead conducting its investigation for “solely criminal purposes.” Id. at 316, 98 S.Ct. at 2367. On this appeal, Copp seeks to invoke this “sole criminal purpose” defense, which he contends the district court incorrectly found was overturned by the 1982 amendments to Section 7602.
The LaSalle Court stated that taxpayers seeking to avail themselves of the sole criminal purpose defense “bear the burden to disprove the actual existence of a valid civil tax determination or collection purpose by the Service.” Id. As a result, even if the defense has continuing vitality, Copp has the burden of disproving that in this case the IRS is not pursuing a valid civil tax determination. The first hurdle which appellant must therefore clear is the district court’s finding that the IRS has not abandoned the pursuit of Copp’s civil tax liability. Copp must show that this finding was clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Hintze v. IRS, 879 F.2d 121, 125 (4th Cir.1989), reh’d denied en banc; United States v. Claes, 747 F.2d 491, 495 (8th Cir.1984). We find that this burden has not been met. In seeking enforcement of an administrative summons, the IRS must meet the standard of good faith set forth in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964). It “must show that the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose, that the inquiry may be relevant to that purpose, that the information sought is not already within the Commissioner’s possession, and that the administrative steps required by the Code have been followed.” Id. at 57-58, 85 S.Ct. at 255. In this case, the IRS filed an affidavit signed by Revenue Agent Ernest Van Loan which was uncontroverted and established each of these elements. The district court relied on this affidavit in finding that “there is no criminal referral, the summons was issued in good faith to make a correct determination of the petitioner’s federal income tax liabilities, if any, for the taxable years under investigation, and all of the required procedures of the Internal Revenue Code have been followed.” Implicit in the district court’s ruling was a finding that in issuing its summons to Goldman Sachs the IRS was not seeking information solely for a criminal purpose. Even under LaSalle, the IRS is entitled to enforcement of its summons where determination of civil tax liability is at least one of its purposes. Accord 437 U.S. at 310-11, 98 S.Ct. at 2364-65.
Copp’s effort to establish that the district court’s ruling was clearly erroneous is limited. He alleges that several facts — including the alleged expansion of the audit to include tax years outside of 1988 and the refusal of the IRS to conditionally accept a portion of requested additional documents — constitute evidence of an improper purpose on the part of the IRS. He has not, however, demonstrated how these facts, none of which are inconsistent with a civil audit, suggest an improper purpose. Copp also relies on the fact that in a related case before Judge Stahl in the District of New Hampshire, based on similar allegations made by Copp in response to summonses issued in New Hampshire against other third-party recordkeepers, the court concluded that sufficient showing had been made for Copp to pursue a sole criminal purpose defense. Judge Stahl directed the IRS agent to appear at an evidentiary hearing at which Copp would be afforded the opportunity to examine the agent regarding his purposes in issuing the summonses. Judge Stahl’s ruling is not before this Court on this appeal, however. And the fact that Judge Stahl in a separate proceeding has allowed Copp to proceed to an evidentiary hearing on this claim does not establish that Judge Mazzone’s finding in this case was clearly erroneous.
The district court order of summary enforcement of the summons is therefore affirmed.
So ordered.
. Copp also contends that Judge Mazzone erred in enforcing the IRS summons without conducting an evidentiary hearing. In order to proceed to an evidentiary hearing to question the propriety of an IRS summons, a taxpayer must make a sufficient threshold showing that there was an improper purpose behind an IRS summons. United States v. Salter, 432 F.2d 697 (1st Cir.1970). To make this showing, the taxpayer must do more than allege an improper purpose; he must introduce evidence to support his allegations. Id. District court decisions to enforce a summons without a hearing are reviewable under the abuse of discretion standard. Accord Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469 U.S. 310, 324 n. 7, 105 S.Ct. 725, 732 n. 7, 83 L.Ed.2d 678 (1985); Hintze, supra, 879 F.2d at 126; United States v. Samuels, Kramer & Co., 712 F.2d 1342, 1345 (9th Cir.1983). Appellant again relies primarily on Judge Stahl’s conclusion that the allegations made by Copp were sufficient to proceed to an evidentiary hearing. As with his substantive claim, the fact that Judge Stahl reached a contrary conclusion does not yield an abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Maz-zone.

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