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.

Opinion:
DREHER v. UNITED STATES.
No. 8472.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 24, 1937.
John S. Cooper, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Peirson M. Hall, U. S. Atty., and John J. Irwin and Norman W. Neukom, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Los Angeles, Cal.
Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.
MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.
William F. Dreher was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced for violating the mail fraud statute (Criminal Code, § 215, 18 U.S.C.A. § 338), and has appealed.
The appeal was taken on February 20, 1937, by filing and serving a notice of appeal, in duplicate, as required by Rule 3 of the Criminal Appeals Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court on May 7, 1934 (292 U.S. 661-666, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723a). The duplicate notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of this court on February 25, 1937. The record was filed here on April 21, 1937.
There was, and is, no assignment of errors. Such assignments are expressly required by rules 8 and 9 of the Criminal Appeals Rules, supra. This requirement is not new. It is a continuation of an old requirement. See 28 U.S.C.A §§ 861a, 861b, 862, 880, and our rule 11. Noncompliance with this requirement warrants dismissal of an appeal. E. R. Squibb & Sons v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 293 U.S. 190, 191, 55 S.Ct. 135, 79 L.Ed. 279.
Appellant did not comply with rules 8 and 9, or either of them. He did not file an assignment of errors “within a time stated,” as provided in rule 8, or “within thirty (30) days after' the taking of the appeal,” as provided in rule 9, or at all. No extension of the time specified in rule 9 was granted or applied for. The time within which the trial judge might have granted such an extension expired on March 29, 1937. Examination of the record discloses no excuse for appellant’s noncompliance with thse rules, nor any reason why an extension of time should have been or should now be granted. Compare Long v. United States (C.C.A.9) 90 F.(2d) 482, 484. We conclude, therefore, that the appeal should be dismissed.
Even if not dismissed, this appeal would be unavailing. Appellant’s brief states: “The legal questions presented to and to be determined by this Court in this appeal are:
“First: Is it necessary under the law applicable to this case, that the name of some Grand Jury witness be endorsed on the indictment ?
“Second: Were the fifteen indictment letters and other evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure?”
These are the only questions discussed in appellant’s brief. These questions were raised, if at all, by exceptions to rulings which would not be reviewable by this court unless incorporated in a bill of exceptions. There is no valid bill of exceptions in this case. The time within which such a bill might have been settled and filed expired on March 29, 1937. No extension of that time was granted or applied for. The bill brought here was settled and filed on March 30, 1937, one day too late. It, therefore, could not be considered. Cary v. United States (C.C.A.9) 86 F.(2d) 461, 462; St. Charles v. United States (C.C.A.9) 86 F.(2d) 463, 464; Miller v. United States (C.C.A.9) 88 F.(2d) 102; Hightower v. United States (C.C.A.9) 88 F.(2d) 302; Long v. United States, supra.
Appeal dismissed.
Rule 3 provides: “Appeals shall be taken by filing with the clerk of the trial court a notice, in duplicate, stating that the defendant appeals from the judgment,- and by serving a copy of the notice upon the United States Attorney. The notice of appeal shall set forth the title of the case, the names and addresses of the appellant - and appellant’s attorney, a general statement of the nature of the offense, the date of the judgment, the sentence imposed, and, if the appellant is in custody, the prison where appellant is confined. The notice shall also contain a succinct statement of the grounds of appeal.”
Rule 4 provides: “The clerk of the trial court shall immediately forward the duplicate notice of appeal to the clerk of the appellate court, together with a statement from the docket entries in the case.”
Rule 8 provides: “When it appears that the appeal is to be prosecuted upon the clerk’s record of proceedings, that is, upon the indictment and .other pleadings and the orders, opinions, and judgment of the trial court, without a bill of exceptions, the trial judge shall direct the appellant to file with the clerk of the trial court, within a time stated, an assignment of the errors of which he complains (which may amplify or add to the grounds stated in the notice of appeal), and shall direct the clerk to forward promptly, with his certificate, to the appellate court the above-mentioned record and assignment of errors.”
Rule 9 provides:
“In cases other than those described in Rule VIII, the appellant, within thirty (30) days after the taking of the appeal, or within such further time as within said period of thirty days may be fixed by the trial judge, shall procure to be settled, and shall file with the clerk of the court in which the ease was tried, a bill of exceptions setting forth the proceedings upon which the appellant wishes to rely in addition to those shown by the clerk’s record as described in Rule VIII. Within the same time, the appellant shall file with the clerk of.the tidal court an assignment of the errors of which appellant complains. The bill of exceptions shall be settled by the trial judge as promptly as possible, and he shall give no extension of time that is not required in the interest of justice. * * *
“Upon the filing of the bill of exceptions and assignment of errors, the clerk of the trial court shall forthwith transmit them, together with such matters of record as are pertinent to the appeal, with his certificate, to the clerk of the appellate court, and the papers so forwarded shall constitute the record on appeal.”
Rule 13 provides that, for the purpose of computing time as specified in these rules, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded.
The case was submitted to this court on briefs, without oral argument.
[4] 6 There was a demurrer to the indictment, but the demurrer did not raise either of the questions discussed in appellant’s brief. If raised, as appellant claims to have raised them, by motion to quash, motion to suppress evidence, objections to evidence, and motions to strike evidence, these questions would not be reviewable in the absence of a valid bill of exceptions.

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.

Choices:

Answer: 0