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. Adam BAGDASIAN, Appellant.
No. 8255.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 19, 1961.
Decided May 29, 1961.
James B. Murphy and Solomon B. Levin, Baltimore, Md., for appellant.
Robert E. Cahill, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (Joseph D. Tydings, U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges.
SOBELOFF, Chief Judge.
This appeal by Adam Bagdasian reveals a picaresque story of a fraud effectively perpetrated upon one who was willing to join in a scheme to defraud another. The defrauder, who is the appellant here, was tried without a jury and convicted on seven of the thirteen counts of an indictment charging him with devising a scheme to defraud and using interstate telephone and telegraph facilities for the purpose of executing such scheme, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 1348. The sentence was imprisonment for one year on each count, the terms of imprisonment to run concurrently.
There was testimony tending to show that Bagdasian separately approached E. R. Culpepper of Norfolk, Virginia, and John Allen of Newport News, Virginia, and falsely represented to each that his name was George Simon, that he was employed as manager by a bookmaker, and was in a position to cheat his employer by changing office records after races had been run, so as to make it appear that bets had been placed on winning horses. He told Culpepper and Allen that if they phoned in their bets to a certain telephone number in Tacoma Park, Maryland, which he supplied them, he, Bagdasian, could and would arrange to place their bets on horses that had already won. The plan he proposed called for equal division of the spoils between himself and the bettor.
Culpepper was completely taken in. Initially, he was induced by Bagdasian to wire $1,500 from Norfolk to the Western Union Company office in Annapolis, Maryland, to be picked up by Bagdasian in the name of Larry Ford. Bagdasian later influenced Culpepper to wire additional sums to “Larry Ford” in care of the same Western Union office. Culpepper was persuaded to advance these additional monies by Bagdasian’s representations that Culpepper had won various sums aggregating over a short period $26,000, but that for one reason or another it was necessary for Culpepper to advance more money before he could get his winnings. It was shown that Bagdasian, identifying himself as Larry Ford, personally collected from Western Union the monies so transmitted. Altogether, as a result of the various transactions, Culpepper was cheated out of $8,500 instead of sharing in the expected looting of Bagdasian’s supposed bookmaker employer, who has never been found to exist.
Allen, on the other hand, testified that he never accepted the proposal to defraud Bagdasian’s employer, but that he did place bets with the defendant, thinking that he was employed by a bookmaker. He was not required to put up betting money in advance, since Bagdasian told him, with simulated graciousness, that he had satisfied himself of Allen’s financial responsibility. Apparently Allen had some independent knowledge or advice about racing, or was fortunate, and did phone in bets on horses that turned out to be actual winners. Then he was told by Bagdasian that he had won, but that it would now be necessary for him to put up a deposit of $5,000 before he could collect his winnings. More wary than Culpepper, Allen put up no money and was content to forego the reported winnings.
On this appeal Bagdasian asserts (1) that the indictment does not - properly charge the offense; (2) that there was a fatal variance between indictment and proof; and (3) that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support the verdict.
As to the indictment, it was pointed out preliminarily that it does not allege that the defendant converted the money to his own use; ■ but the short answer is that this is not an essential part of the crime of devising a fraudulent scheme and using interstate wire facilities for the purpose of executing such scheme.
The principal fault found with the indictment by the appellant is that after reciting the representations made by the defendant to his intended victims, and averring that they were false and known by the defendant to be false, the indictment fails to show “why the representations alleged to be false were false in fact.” Appellant’s counsel explained that by “why,” as here used, he means wherein, or in what respect. The point attempted to be made is that the indictment should have continued with a recital of the opposite of the representations, such as that the defendant was in fact not employed by the bookmaker, that he was not in a position to change losing bets into winners after the race had been run, etc. We do not perceive how in this case such a form of traverse would have been more enlightening than the allegation that was embodied in each count, namely, “that each and all of the pretenses, representations and promises made by the defendant, as listed [in the preceding paragraph] * * * were false and fraudulent and were at all times known by him to be false and fraudulent.”
It is, of course, a fundamental requirement in criminal pleading that every element of an offense must be charged with sufficient clarity and specificity to enable the defendant to prepare his defense and to plead the judgment of conviction or acquittal in bar of a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Debrow, 1953, 346 U.S. 374, 74 S.Ct. 113, 98 L.Ed. 92. We think, however, that this indictment meets these requirements.
The defendant, in support of his contention, relies on Hass v. United States, 8 Cir., 1937, 93 F.2d 427, but that case is no authority for holding the present indictment insufficient. It is true that in Hass, wherein the indictment was upheld, the court noted that the defendant was informed how the representations were false. The court, however, did not intimate that a more detailed specificity than we have here is required. This is not a case in which representations attributed to a defendant involve many complicated details and he might not know in what respect the representation is claimed by the prosecutor to be false. All that was here required was the plain negation of the alleged misrepresentations which are unitary and uninvolved.
Likewise inapposite is United States v. Post, D.C.S.D.Fla.1902, 113 F. 852, 853 cited by the defendant, where the charge was a scheme to defraud by promising to “cure all diseases and poverty by mental science,” but the defendant’s good faith was not negatived. A later indictment against the same defendant, which did charge falsity to the defendant’s knowledge, was upheld on appeal. Post v. United States, 5 Cir., 1905, 135 F. 1, 7 L.R.A. 989.
Finally, it is to be noted that the draftsmen of the present indictment followed closely form 3 suggested in the Appendix of Forms of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. Also, a mail fraud indictment was sustained against a like attack in United States v. Whitmore, D.C.S.D.Cal.1951, 97 F.Supp. 733, 737.
We need not dwell upon the appellant’s contention that there was a variance between the charges made in the indictment and the proof. It is argued that the evidence in fact showed a scheme between Bagdasian, Culpepper and Allen to cheat Bagdasian’s employer, of whose actual existence there is no evidence. The Judge, however, was well justified in his view of the evidence that the plan to cheat the “employer” was a fiction held out to bait Culpepper and Allen, and that Bagdasian’s real scheme was to cheat them by pretending that he was in league with them to cheat someone else.
The evidence amply supports the District Judge’s verdict, despite the alleged discrepancies in the testimony. At most, the matters stressed go only to the credibility of witnesses — an issue not reviewable here. See United States v. Bagdasian, D.C.Md.1960, 188 F.Supp. 683.
Affirmed.
. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 reads as follows:
“§ 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television
“Whoever, having devised or intending to ’devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Added July 16, 1952, c. 879, § 18(a), 66 Stat. 722, amended July 11, 1956, c. 561, 70 Stat. 523.”
. At the bar of this court counsel for the defendant relied upon United States v. Larson, D.C.Alaska 1954, 125 F.Supp. 360, for the proposition that an indictment is not necessarily valid merely because it is drawn in accordance with a form contained in the Appendix of Forms of the Federal Buies of Criminal Procedure. But, cf. Ochoa v. United States, 9 Cir., 1948, 167 F.2d 341. The Larson case presents no analogy helpful to the defendant here. The present indictment would qualify as full compliance not only with the form but with the general requirements of the law.

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