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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Torres ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 88-3501.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 23, 1989.
William L. Crull, III, F. Irvin Dymond, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant.
Walter F. Becker, Asst. U.S. Atty., John Volz, U.S. Atty., Gerry Deegan, Robert J. Boitmann, Asst. U.S. Attys., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEE, WILLIAMS, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:
Luis Torres Rojas pled guilty to possession of approximately four hundred ninety-seven grams of cocaine with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On appeal, he challenges only his sentence. Rojas contends that the sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional. He also contends that he was entitled to a reduction in his offense level because he was a minor or minimal participant in his crime; that the district judge incorrectly determined the amount of cocaine involved in the crime; and that the district judge should have made a downward departure from the guidelines because Rojas aided authorities. Finding no error in the sentence imposed, we affirm.
I
Rojas challenges the constitutionality of the sentencing guidelines. His argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mistretta v. United States, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989).
II
The district judge found that Rojas’s crime involved 497 grams of cocaine. Rojas contends that the district court should instead have found that the crime involved only 338 grams, because the 497 grams was only 68% pure. This argument contradicts the clear language of the guidelines. In a footnote to the Drug Quantity Table accompanying Guideline 2D1.1, the guidelines state, “if any mixture of a compound contains any detectable amount of a controlled substance, the entire amount of the mixture or compound shall be considered in measuring the quantity.” The district court therefore correctly applied § 2D1.1.
III
Rojas contends that because he was a drug courier, he was entitled to a reduction in his offense level as a “minor” or “minimal” participant. See Guideline 3B1.-2. We have held, however, that a defendant may be a courier without being either a minimal participant or a minor participant. United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.1989).
Minor participant status is not a legal conclusion derived by applying the guidelines to factual determinations. It is itself a factual determination, and enjoys the protection of the “clearly erroneous” standard. That factual determination turns upon culpability, not courier status. As we said in Buenrostro, a defendant may be a courier without being substantially less culpable than the average participant. Culpability is a determination requiring sensitivity to a variety of factors.
In this case, the district judge clearly found that the defendant was neither a minimal nor a minor participant, basing his conclusion upon the significant quantity of cocaine which Rojas possessed. The record provides clear support for this conclusion, and, following Buenrostro, we therefore affirm.
IV
Rojas claims that the trial judge should have departed from the guidelines because Rojas provided substantial assistance to the authorities. See Guideline 5K1.1. We will uphold a district court’s refusal to depart from the guidelines unless the refusal was in violation of law. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d at 139. Rojas does not, however, suggest any law violated by the district court’s refusal to depart. Indeed, the gist of the defendant’s claim is that the district court gave him precisely the sentence required by law. A claim that the district court refused to depart from the guidelines and imposed a lawful sentence provides no ground for relief. We therefore affirm the district court’s refusal to depart from the guidelines.
The judgment of the district court is, in all respects,
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