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:
Loy Dean SHEFFIELD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 23681.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
April 17, 1967.
Rehearing Denied June 23, 1967.
Robert B. Thompson, Robinson, Thompson, Buice & Harben, Gainesville, Ga., for appellant.
Thomas K. McWhorter, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Charles L. Goodson, U.S. Atty., Robert L. Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge, and FULTON, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This appellant was convicted on count one and on counts two and five of an indictment charging violation of the Federal liquor statutes. Appellant attacks only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict as to count one. This court has held that where evidence is found sufficient to support conviction on one count, and the total sentence does not exceed the maximum which might have been imposed thereunder, the appellate court would not consider sufficiency of the evidence to support the other counts. Holt v. United States, 5 Cir., 1961, 288 F.2d 447; Benson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 332 F.2d 288, 290.
The judgment is affirmed.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Appellant calls our attention to the fact that our failure to consider his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence introduced on count one of this indictment was based on an incorrect application of a well known rule of law. This rule is that where there is a verdict of guilt on several counts and the sentences are to be served concurrently, and where the evidence as to only one of the counts is challenged as sufficient on appeal, the court will not consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction of the single count if the sentence on the others does not exceed the maximum that could be imposed on the count in issue. See Holt v. United States, 5 Cir. 1961, 288 F.2d 447; Benson v. United States, 5 Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 288, 290.
We agree that this rule is not applicable here, because the sentence on the first count which appellant attacks on appeal was for eighteen months in the custody of the Attorney General whereas the sentences on the remaining counts was for twelve months probation, to be served following the confinement. See Pugliese v. United States, 1st Cir. 343 F.2d 837.
However, upon a careful examination of the record, we find that not only was no motion for acquittal made as to the first, or any other, count at the conclusion of the case, but we also find, without determining that this is a proper case for application of the clear error rule, Rule 52(b) F.R.Crim.P., that there was ample evidence upon which the jury could find that Sheffield was guilty of the offense charged in count one of the indictment. Not only was there evidence that co-defendant, J. C. Painter, who was first approached by the government agents to buy the moonshine liquor, took them several miles to a place of business operated jointly by Sheffield and co-defendant Lingerfelt, who then went off and obtained the liquor and completed the transaction, but we conclude that the jury could also consider the evidence on the sale two days later which was made the basis of count two of the indictment. That evidence indicated that Sheffield actively participated in the later sale and offered to produce the liquor before the agents even asked for it. This evidence was admissible to show the degree of involvement of Sheffield on the earlier occasion, if any such evidence was needed after it was clear that the transaction took place on property at least jointly under Sheffield’s control.
The petition for rehearing is denied. .
. This, of course, prevented the trial court from considering the alleged lack of evidence to support the verdict of the jury, and would normally prevent our consideration of the case on appeal. However, here the government does not object to our consideration of the evidence on this ground.

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