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:
AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. PARKWAY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 74-1952.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted June 9, 1975.
Decided June 30, 1975.
D. Sherman Cox, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Richard J. Sheehan, Susman, Stern, Agatstein, Heifetz & Gallop, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On April 20, 1972, American General Finance Corporation [American General] executed an agreement whereby it undertook to_ guarantee loans made by Parkway Bank and Trust Company [Bank] to Sayre & Fisher Company [Sayre]. The agreement provided in part that American General guaranteed the prompt payment of
* * * any and all indebtedness or other obligations for the payment of money * * * now or hereafter existing, * * * together with any and all extentions [sic] or renewals thereof. (Emphasis supplied.)
On July 26, 1972, Sayre executed a promissory note in the amount of $100,-000 in favor of the Bank. Sayre defaulted on that note, and the Bank brought this action against American General to enforce the guaranty agreement.
Both parties moved for summary judgment. The sole ground asserted by American General in its motion for summary judgment was its contention that it was a “surety” within the meaning of Missouri law, and that the Bank’s failure to commence suit against Sayre within thirty days of receipt of American General’s “Notice to Commence Suit” barred any action against American General under V.A.M.S. § 433.030. The District Court held that American General was not a surety within the meaning of Missouri law, and that § 433.030 did not bar the action. The court then granted summary judgment for the Bank.
American General now contends that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous because the guaranty agreement did not cover prior indebtedness and, in fact, $57,000 and the $100,-000 loan predated execution of the agreement. We reject this contention for two reasons. First, it is axiomatic that issues not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal. See, e. g., Brennan v. Maxey’s Yamaha, Inc., 513 F.2d 179, 184 (8th Cir. 1975); United States v. John, 508 F.2d 1134, 1140 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 962, 95 S.Ct. 1948, 44 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975). See also Smith v. American Guild of Variety Artists, 368 F.2d 511, 514 (8th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 931, 87 S.Ct. 2052, 18 L.Ed.2d 991 (1967), and cases cited therein. American General’s claim that the guaranty agreement did not cover prior indebtedness has never been presented to the District Court.
Second, it is our view that the language of the guaranty agreement is clear and unambiguous, and that it was intended to cover prior indebtedness. Thus, this is not an occasion for abrogation of the issue-preclusion rule, “where the obvious result would be a plain miscarriage of justice.” Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 558, 61 S.Ct. 719, 722, 85 L.Ed. 1037 (1941). We are satisfied that there has been no injustice in the District Court’s entry of judgment.
Affirmed.
. Counsel for American General conceded at oral argument that this issue was properly decided by the District Court, and no appeal has been taken from the determination.
. Counsel for American General urges that the defense of prior indebtedness was not raised before the District Court because he was not aware until the time of summary judgment that $57,000 had been loaned previous to the signing of the guaranty agreement. This contention is without merit. Counsel’s own affidavit in support of summary judgment alleged that
* * * at the time that defendant guaranteed Sayre & Fisher Company’s liability on April 20, 1972, * * * the Sayre & Fisher Company was already indebted to the plaintiff in an amount in excess of $50,000 * * *. (Emphasis supplied.)
This affidavit was filed four months prior to the court’s entry of summary judgment.

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