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:
RYAN v. UNITED STATES.
No. 4604.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
May 3, 1932.
M. Lester Geers, of Edwardsville, 111., and A. B. Dennis, of Danville, 111., for appellant.
Paul P. Jones, U. S. Atty., of Danville, 111., and J. Fred Gilster, Asst. U. S. Atty., of' East St. Louis, 111., for the United States.
Before' ALSCHULER, EYANS, and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.
SPARKS, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
Appellant relies upon the following alleged errors of the trial court: (1) In overruling the demurrer to the indictment; (2) in denying'appellant’s motion! for a directed verdict at the close of the government’s evidence, and also at the conclusion of all the evidence; (3) in overruling his motion for a new trial; (4) in overruling his motion in arrest of judgment; (5) in admitting in evidence, over his objection, Government Exhibits 9, 10, and 12; and (6) in admitting, over his objection, the testimony of P. A. Buchanan.
The indictment herein involves the statute relating to perjury, 18 USCA § 231 (Cr. Code § 125), as well as the one relating to subornation of perjury, 18 USCA § 232 (Cr. Code § 126).
With reference to. the validity of the indictment, appellant contends that the subject-matter of the inquiry, concerning which Mrs. Pearson testified falsely, was not material to the issue then before the referee. The indictment alleged generally that it was material to the issue, and the remaining allegations in no way controvert the general allegation. This is sufficient. Berry v. United States (C. C. A.) 259 P. 203; United States v. Salen (D. C.) 216 F. 420; Baskin v. United States (C. C. A.) 209 F. 740; United States v. Nelson (D. C.) 199 P. 464; Ammerman v. United States (C. C. A.) 185 P. 1. Aside from the general allegation of materiality of the inquiry to the subject-matter in issue, we think the specific allegations of the indictment so obviously show the materiality of the inquiry as to render further discussion quite unnecessary.
It is next contended by appellant that the indictment is defective in not alleging ■ that appellant knew that the witness would corruptly and willfully give the false testimony; and in support of this contention he cites United States v. Dennee, 25 Fed. Cas., page 817, No. 14,947, decided by the Circuit Court of Louisiana in 1877, and United States v. Evans, 19 F. 912, decided by the District Court in California in 1884. The Dennee Case seems so to hold, but, so far as we are able to ascertain, it has never been followed in any other federal court. The Evans Case, as we read it, does not support appellant’s contention. It holds that to constitute the crime of procuring perjury to be committed, it is not enough that both the accused and the witness knew the falsity of the statements sworn to, but that the accused must also have .known that the witness knew the statements to be false. The instant indictment is not defective in this particular. In Boren v. United States (C. C. A. Cal. 1906) 144 F. 801, 802, the court said that the essential elements of the crime of subornation of perjury are: “(1) that the testimony of the suborned witness must be false and known to be false by him, and the truth of the matter so falsely testified to must be set forth; (2) the suborner must know or believe that the testimony of the witness about to be given will be false, and he must know or intend that the witness is to give the testimony corruptly or with the knowledge or belief of its falsity.” In none of these respects is the instant indictment at fault.
Appellant further contends that the witness cannot be held for perjury on account of any false testimony she may have given before the referee, and for that reason appellant cannot be held for subornation of perjury.' This conclusion would be correct if the premise were sound, but that the premise is not sound" is well settled. Hammer v. United States, 271 U. S. 620, 46 S. Ct. 603, 70 L. Ed. 1118; Cameron v. United States, 231 U. S. 710, 34 S. Ct. 244, 58 L. Ed. 448; Glickstein v. United States, 222 U. S. 139, 32 S. Ct. 71, 56 L. Ed. 128; Gordon v. United States (C. C. A.) 5 F.(2d) 943; Schonfeld v. United States (C. C. A.) 277 F. 934; Ulmer v. United States (C. C. A.) 219 F. 641; Baskin v. United States (C. C. A.) 209 F. 740; Epstein v. United States (C. C. A.) 196 F. 354; Daniels v. United States (C. C. A.) 196 F. 459; Hashagen v. United States (C. C. A.) 169 F. 396; Wechsler v. United States (C. C. A.) 158 F. 579; Troeder v. Lorsch (C. C. A.) 150 F. 710; Edelstein v. United States (C. C. A.) 149 F. 636, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 236. There was no error in overruling the demurrer to the indictment, or in overruling appellant’s motion in arrest of judgment, or in failing to direct a verdict in favor of appellant.
The testimony of P. A. Buchanan was admitted for the purpose of impeaching appellant by his statements made at another time relative to the number of times that Mr. and Mrs. Pearson had been in appellant’s office at St. Louis. There was no error in this, ruling. .
Appellant insists that Government Exhibits 9,10, and 12 were erroneously admitted in evidence. These exhibits were letters. No. 10 was written to Mrs. Pearson by appellant on June 3, 1929; No. 12 was written to bankrupt on July 24, 1929, and was signed “Jim,” which is appellant’s first name; and No. 9 was written to bankrupt on March 3, 1930, and was signed “Jim and Joe,” but it was probably written by Hopewell. On what theory these letters were offered or admitted we have not been informed, nor do we know, unless they were considered important in showing the relations existing between appellant and Hopewell and bankrupt and his wife; but even for this purpose they could only be considered as remotely material, if at all. The contents of these letters are largely laudatory of the writers. They contain nothing which bears on the guilt or innocence of appellant and cannot be considered as prejudicial. We think their admission in evidence was harmless.
The court’s ruling on the motion for a new trial presents no question for our consideration. Judicial Code, § 269; 28 USCA § 391; Brown v. United States (C. C. A.) 9 F. (2d) 588. The evidence supporting the verdict is quite substantial and decidedly convincing.
Judgment affirmed.
18 USCA § 231. “Whoever, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, shall «willfully and contrary to such oath state or subscribe any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury, and shall be fined not more than $2,000 and imprisoned not more than five years.”
18 USCA § 232. “Whoever shall procure another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and punishable as in section 231 o£ this title prescribed.”

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: 1