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 "natural persons". 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:
The FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, a corporation, and John Fawcett, Appellees.
No. 7950.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
June 23, 1965.
R. C. Jopling, Jr., Oklahoma City, Okl. (Fowler, Rucks, Baker, Jopling, Gramlich & Mee, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
Edgar Fenton, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Fenton, Fenton, Smith & McCaleb, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
John A. Johnson, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Savage, Gibson, Benefield & Shelton, Oklahoma City, Old., on the brief), for appellee John Fawcett.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and HILL, Circuit Judges.
HILL, Circuit Judge.
Appellant commenced this diversity action in the Western District of Oklahoma to recover from its insurers the amount of a loss claimed to be compensable under a “Bankers Blanket Bond Insurance Contract”. From a judgment for the defendants, the plaintiff has appealed.
The facts are not in dispute. Appellant is a national bank located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Appellee United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company is a Maryland insurance corporation which engages in business in the State of Oklahoma. Appellee Fawcett is an underwriter of Lloyd’s of London. 2United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company issued its Bankers Blanket Bond to appellant on April 22, 1952, in the amount of $50,000, which bond remained in force until April 22, 1961. Also, during this time, Lloyd’s of London, represented here by appellee Fawcett, issued to the bank a similar bond for coverage in excess of $50,000 up to $1,000,000. On April 22, 1961, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company issued its bond covering losses up to $1,000,000 and the Lloyd’s of London policy was either can-celled or not renewed.
In 1961, the appellant bank loaned $129,289.46 to the Sadler Brothers Pipe Line Construction Company, which loan was secured by Sadler assigning to the bank certain accounts receivable which were fictitious, although the signature of Sadler Pipe Line Construction Company in making the assignment was authentic. The parties agreed that this indebtedness by Sadler Pipe Line Construction Company to the bank is uncollectible.
The indemnity bond issued by appellees contained the following clauses which are controlling here:
“THE LOSSES COVERED BY THIS BOND ARE AS FOLLOWS:
SECURITIES
(E) Any loss through the Insured’s having, * * * extended any credit or assumed any liability, on the faith of, or otherwise acted upon any securities, documents or other written instruments which prove to have been counterfeited or forged as to the signatures of any maker, drawer, issuer, endorser, assignor * *
And further the bond provides under its exclusions that:
“Section 1. THIS BOND DOES NOT COVER:
(d) Any loss the result of the complete or partial non-payment of or default upon any loan made by or obtained from the Insured, whether procured in good faith or through trick, artifice, fraud or false pretenses, except when covered by Insuring Clause (A), (D) or (E).”
Thus, if appellant is to prevail, it must be under Insuring Clause (E) as neither Insuring Clause (A) or (D) are applicable here. The appellant conceded, we believe, that the signature of Sadler Brothers Pipe Line Construction Company was not forged and that the part of Insuring Clause (E) concerning the forgery of a signature is not applicable. The appellant does invoke Clause (E), on the theory that the loss resulted from having “ * * * extended * * * credit * * * on the faith of * * * securities, documents or other written instruments which prove to have been counterfeited * * *.” The question to decide then is if these fictitious accounts receivable which were assigned to the bank can be considered counterfeited.
We know of only one case which squarely supports appellant’s argument. The Third Circuit in Fidelity Trust Company v. American Surety Company of New York, 268 F.2d 805 (3rd Cir., 1959) held in a like situation applying Pennsylvania law that Insuring Cause (E) applied and that invoices which covered fictitious transactions were counterfeit. That court indicated the term “counterfeit” should be construed in accordance with business language and, in that lexicon, it means something that purports to be what it is not.
The majority of courts which have encountered this problem have held these fictitious invoices and accounts receivable cannot be considered counterfeit within the meaning of Insuring Clause (E). These courts in general agree that the term “counterfeit” means an imitation of an authentic document or writing or a resemblance intended to deceive and to be taken for the original. Clearly in this case, the invoices which formed the basis of the accounts receivable were not imitations of anything original or authentic, but mere fraudulent misrepresentations of fact, to-wit, that certain material had already been delivered. While it is presumed that Oklahoma law would apply, we have found no Oklahoma law which would be dispositive of the matter. The trial judge apparently believed that Oklahoma would follow the majority rule and we give great weight to his interpretation of the law unless it is clearly wrong. Pendergraft v. Commercial Standard Fire & Marine Co., 342 F.2d 427 (10th Cir., 1965).
Appellant has raised one further argument here we must consider which is that appellees are estopped from denying coverage under this bond. The facts upon which the estoppel argument is based are these: During 1960 the appellant bank loaned a considerable sum of money to one Walter E. Allen who assigned as security therefor accounts receivable evidenced by invoices of goods shipped to the U. S. Government. The invoices required the signature of an authorized government inspector for validation. The signatures of these government inspectors were obtained either by inserting fictitious invoices between several copies of genuine invoices as if such fictitious invoices were copies of the genuine invoices or by inserting blank forms between genuine invoices and typing in the blanks afterward. However, a few of the invoices bore no signature but merely the typed name of such inspector below the line for the inspector’s signature. At this time, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company only insured up to $50,000 with Lloyd’s of London indemnifying any loss above that figure not to exceed one million dollars. Both insurers, however, did in that instance indemnify the bank when the notes of Allen became uncollectible. Upon expiration of the bonds under which the Allen claims arose, appellant decided to insure entirely up to one million dollars with United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. At the time this bond was issued no understanding, other than the contract of insurance, was had between the insurer and the bank as to the coverage afforded by the bank and no representation was made that claims arising out of losses through loans made on fictitious invoices would or would not be paid.
The facts in the Allen matter are not identical to those in the present case. In the Allen matter, the invoices upon which the bank relied were the subject of fraud when the government inspectors’ signatures were obtained without their knowledge. Those facts are clearly within the Oklahoma statutory definition of forgery in the second degree, thus within the policy coverage concerning forged documents. Therefore, we see no merit to appellant’s argument on this point. The facts do not show that Fidelity changed its position with respect to the interpretation of the clause in question or misled appellant by its silence at the time of the execution of the renewal insurance contract.
Affirmed.
“§ 1593. Falsely obtaining signature Every person who, by any false representation, artifice or deceit, procures from another his signature to any instrument, the false making of which would be forgery, and which the party signing would not have executed had he known the facts and effect of the instrument, is guilty of forgery in the second degree.”
. Appellee Fawcett appeared in behalf of all of Lloyd’s underwriters who underwrote the insurance of Lloyd’s Banks’ and Trust Companies’ Policy No. 60009.
. There was a dispute concerning which bonds covered the loss in question for if the loss was discovered before April 22, 1961, Lloyd’s of London would be responsible for any loss in excess of $50,000; but if the loss occurred after that date, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company would be solely responsible for the entire amount. The court below saw no reason to decide this matter in view of its determination that in any event, neither appellees were liable for this type of loss.
. In all there were .four invoices which were assigned. Each one was on a Sadler Brothers Pipe Line Construction Company invoice form and addressed to Champlin Oil and Refining Company indicating the amount of pipe line laid for Champlin and the price per foot. At the bottom of the invoice was written: “For Value Received, the within account is hereby assigned and transferred to the First National Bank and Trust Company of Oklahoma City, together with the right to collect the same,” followed by the date and the signature of Roy E. Cook as President. The invoices were fictitious in that no pipe was laid for Champlin and hence there was no account receivable to assign.
. The Seventh Circuit however has held tlie indemnity bond applicable to a situation similar to this on the basis that the fictitious invoices were forged. Security National Bank of Durand v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, 246 F.2d 582 (7th Cir., 1957). Although Wisconsin law was controlling, apparently none was available. The Seventh Circuit approved a definition of forgery as either a forged signature to a true instrument or a real signature to a false instrument. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in First American State Bank v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 25 Wis.2d 190, 130 N.W.2d 824 (1964), declined to follow the Seventh Circuit in Durand and held on similar facts that assignment of fictitious accounts receivable were neither forged nor counterfeit.
. See generally, The Exchange National Bank of Olean v. Insurance Company of North America, 341 F.2d 673 (2d Cir., 1965) ; State Bank of Poplar Bluff v. Maryland Casualty Co., 289 F.2d 544 (8th Cir., 1961); First National Bank of Memphis v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 309 F.2d 702 (6th Cir., 1962), cert. denied 372 U.S. 953, 83 S.Ct. 951, 9 L.Ed.2d 977 (1963) ; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. First National Bank of Fort Morgan, 147 Colo. 446, 364 P.2d 202 (1961); Metropolitan Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. National Surety Co., 48 F.2d 611 (D.C.Minn.1931). In two cases, North Carolina National Bank v. United States Casualty Co., 317 F.2d 304 (4th Cir., 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 905, 84 S.Ct. 193, 11 L.Ed.2d 144 (1963) and First National Bank of South Carolina of Columbia v. Glens Falls Insurance Company, 304 F.2d 866 (4th Cir., 1962) the Fourth Circuit denied recovery under the blanket bonds because of the words of limitation in the policies “as to any signature” following counterfeit or forged indicate that only a counterfeit signature would allow recovery.
. 21 Oklahoma Statutes Annotated § 1593 reads as follows:

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0