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:
BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Lettie Mae LIGON et al., Appellees.
No. 18750.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
May 30, 1961.
L. W. Anderson, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.
Otto Atchley, Texarkana, Tex., Charles J. Hlavinka, Atchley, Russell & Hutchinson, Texarkana, Tex., of counsel, for ap-pellees.
Before CAMERON, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment awarding death benefits under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Act after a trial by the Court without a jury. Only two matters are presented.
The first has to do with the status of Ligón, the decedent. The Insurer insists that as Ligón was regularly employed by the Employer as a long-haul over-the-road driver whose earnings were dependent on mileage driven and who had actually been off work for a week or so on account of a heart condition, his act of delivering some meat to a customer was that of a volunteer. He was not, therefore, an employee injured in the course and scope of his employment. In reply to this, it is asserted that under controlling Texas law, Halliburton v. Texas Indemnity Insurance Co., 1948, 147 Tex. 133, 213 S.W.2d 677; Grube v. Associated Indemnity Corp., 5 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 119, this is normally a question of fact. As usual, there is an abundance of case law reflecting the applicable standards in construing and applying Art. 8309 § 1 of the Statute which defines an employee as “every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, expressed or implied, oral or written * * Associated Employers’ Lloyds v. Gibson, Tex.Civ.App.1951, 245 S.W.2d 738 (error dism’d); Nobles v. Texas Indemnity Insurance Co., Tex.Com.App.1930, 24 S.W. 2d 367 (recommendation adopted); Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 1944, 142 Tex. 370, 178 S.W.2d 514; Texas Employers’ Insurance Ass’n v. Inge, 1948, 146 Tex. 347, 208 S.W.2d 867.
The facts are quite simple. Ligón was “visiting” the Employer’s plant when a local rush order was received at a time when no local delivery trucks were available. In response to the general manager’s great concern voiced to Ligón and several others that the delivery had to be made in “some way,” Ligón said he would make the delivery in his personal automobile. While removing this load at its destination he suffered a heart attack.
From these facts there was an ample basis upon which the inference of employment, tested as it must be against the clearly erroneous concept of F.R.Civ. P. 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A., could rest. This inference could arise out of either the implied continuation of his prior status as an employee or the making of an implied agreement of hire for the particular task. Ligón was no casual stranger seeking work or offering to do a favor. The Employer’s general manager testified without objection that on the occasion of the accident the Employer “considered him still as [its] employee.” Once his status is that of an employee, not a “volunteer,” what he was doing was clearly within the course and scope of his employment and in the direct furtherance of his master’s business. The Insurer no longer questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that death was the result of his carrying three 30-pound packages of meat from the car into the customer’s place of business. This meets all of the tests. National Surety Corp. v. Bellah, 5 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 936, at page 939; Texas Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Hubbard, Tex.Civ.App. 1940, 138 S.W.2d 626 (error dism’d, judgment correct); Texas Employers’ Insurance Ass’n v. Wright, Tex.Com.App.1936, 128 Tex. 242, 97 S.W.2d 171. This result is in no way in conflict with Demara v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 5 Cir., 1958, 250 F.2d 799; Holditch v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., 5 Cir., 1953, 208 F.2d 721; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Brown, 1938, 131 Tex. 404, 115 S.W.2d 394; American General Insurance Co. v. Coleman, 1957, 157 Tex. 377, 303 S.W.2d 370.
The second contention is that because Ligón had not remained in bed as instructed by his physician when his heart condition flared up a week earlier, this was a refusal to follow medical advice. Consequently, the Insurer urges, this was a violation of § 4, Art. 8307. So far no Texas case has applied this to the cause of the disability (or death) for which compensation benefits are sought. Its application thus far is apparently confined to failure to take proffered treatment after the alleged accidental injury. Argonaut Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Byerly, Tex.Civ.App.1959, 329 S.W.2d 937 (error ref. n.r.e.); Texas Employers’ Insurance Ass’n v. Galloway, Tex. Civ.App.1931, 40 S.W.2d 973. We need not determine this legal point since the evidence warranted the inference that no such positive medical instructions had been given, hence there was no violation of them. Of course, these facts were relevant to the question of cause of death, but the Insurer no longer questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the Trial Court’s finding of fact that death was the result of the accidental injury.
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: 1