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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Samuel SOSA and Julio Argumedo, Appellants.
Nos. 15810, 15811.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
May 22, 1967.
Rehearing Denied in No. 15810 June 15, 1967.
Angelo Ruggiero, Stephen Levy, Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., Gerald M. Werksman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for appellee, John Peter Lulinski, Lawrence E. Morrissey, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and CASTLE and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
HASTINGS, Chief Judge.
These are two appeals from convictions of Samuel Sosa and Julio Argu-medo, on an indictment charging them with conspiracy to deal in narcotics, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 174, following a bench trial by the district court. Each was sentenced to serve a term of six years imprisonment.
On appeal, Sosa contends the trial court erred in failing to produce an informant and in not giving him ample time to interview the informant. He also urges he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In his appeal, Argumedo contends he was entrapped and that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit him to present his testimony with the aid of an interpreter.
The Government’s chief witness was narcotics agent, Robert E. Waltz. He testified that while working as an undercover agent, he was introduced to Sosa by an informant on September 17, 1964. He evidently developed his contact with Sosa, and on November 17, 1964, Sosa informed him he had a quantity of heroin available through a friend. Waltz expressed interest in purchasing heroin, and Sosa told him he would introduce him to the friend, who was Mexican and spoke English with an accent. Sosa indicated he would arrange a meeting and also stated that he was to receive as much as $2000 for arranging the deal.
The meeting was held at the Cafe Olé in Chicago, Illinois, where Sosa told Waltz he would meet a man named Julio. Waltz met Julio Argumedo as planned, who told him the heroin was in Mexico. At a subsequent meeting, Argumedo told Waltz he would go to Mexico to get the heroin and contact Waltz when he returned.
On December 22, 1964, Waltz talked to Sosa and indicated that he was worried, not having heard from Argumedo. Sosa told him not to worry and stated he had given Argumedo $500 as a part of expense money, evidently for the trip to Mexico.
On December 28 Sosa called Waltz and told him Argumedo had returned and would call him the next day, which he did. Argumedo arranged a meeting with Waltz.
At the meeting, Waltz received a sample of narcotics from Argumedo. When Waltz had tested this privately, he talked to narcotic agents and returned to meet Argumedo again. He told Argu-medo he was satisfied with the sample. Argumedo left and returned forty-five minutes later with the remaining narcotics, at which time he was arrested.
During the trial, Sosa asked for the name and address of the informant who introduced Waltz to him. This was furnished the next day, one day before the end of the trial. No request was made for a continuance in order to locate and subpoena the informant.
On appeal, it is argued that the Government should have done more, that the informant should have been produced or that Sosa should have been given, without motion on his part, sufficient time to seek out and interview the informant.
The informant was not a participant in the crime and was not shown to have been related to the acts involved. The record does not reveal the informant would have been or was thought to be a critical or even useful witness. In addition, assuming the informant might have been useful in testing Waltz’s credibility with respect to his introduction to Sosa, Sosa failed to ask for a continuance to locate or interview the informant.
The Government satisfied its duty toward the conduct of a fair trial by supplying the name and address of the informant. The burden of the use of the information fell upon Sosa. Upon good cause shown, a continuance or further disclosure by the Government might have been proper. As Sosa was content with the information supplied, he will not now be heard to say he was prejudiced because the Government failed to do more than fairness required it to do.
As to the contention that Sosa was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we note that, in essence, Sosa’s attack is not upon the sufficiency of the evidence, but upon the credibility of witnesses, Sosa preferring his story to that of Waltz.
Generally, credibility determinations are not reviewable on appeal. Insofar as the sufficiency of the evidence is concerned, it is axiomatic that on an appeal from a conviction, the evidence and the inferences to be drawn from it are to be viewed in a light most favorable to the Government. Glasser v. United States, 815 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). Reviewing the evidence under this stricture, we are unable to say that the evidence, together with the obvious credibility resolutions made by the trial court, does not prove Sosa guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Argumedo argues that the acts for which he was convicted were done at the solicitation of the Government; in short, that he was entrapped. This defense was presented to the trial court.
In reading the evidence, we are constrained, because of the finding of guilty and its attendant credibility resolutions, to assume the truth of the Government’s case where it is essential to the verdict and where it conflicts with that of Argu-medo.
The evidence simply does not correspond to Argumedo’s theory that Waltz over a period of four months carefully nurtured in Argumedo the scheme to obtain narcotics and that he “incessantly belabored” Argumedo into capitulation. The evidence rather tends to show a Government use of artifice and stratagem to present an opportunity for the commission of a crime. The Government may engage in such behavior without endangering its prosecution by a defense of entrapment. Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 372, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958) ; Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 441, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932).
There is no undisputed testimony which “makes it patently clear that an otherwise innocent person was induced to commit the act complained of by the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of a government agent.” United States v. Millpax, Inc., 7 Cir., 313 F.2d 152, 156-157 (1963), cert. den., 373 U.S. 903, 83 S.Ct. 1291, 10 L.Ed.2d 198 (1963). We hold the record does not justify a conclusion that the Government must bear the responsibility for the criminal conduct in this case.
Argumedo’s final contention is that the trial court abused its discretion and committed prejudicial error in refusing to permit him to present his testimony with the use of an interpreter.
The use of an interpreter is discretionary with the trial court. Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86, 27 S.Ct. 456, 51 L.Ed. 722 (1907). In the instant case, the trial judge stated he could understand Spanish, a statement borne out by the record. Argumedo’s testimony, however, was in English. We have examined it and find it does not disclose that he was hampered in understanding or testifying. For that reason and since the trial was to the court and the court knew Spanish, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the use of an interpreter.
The judgments of conviction appealed from are affirmed.
Affirmed.

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