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. Horace TEASLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17133.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
April 3, 1969.
William M. Evans, Indianapolis, Ind., Horace Teasley, in pro. per., for appellant.
Alfred W. Moellering, U. S. Atty., Fort Wayne, Ind., for appellee.
Before FAIRCHILD and KERNER, Circuit Judges, and HOLDER, District Judge.
Judge Holder is sitting by designation from the Southern District of Indiana.
KERNER, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Teasley appeals from his conviction (without jury) of violating the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312, by knowingly transporting a stolen vehicle from Chicago, Illinois to Gary, Indiana. We affirm.
At the time of his arrest, after being fully warned of his constitutional rights, Teasley gave a statement to F.B.I. Agent Standifer. In the statement, Teasley admitted transporting the car across the state line but alleged that he bought it in Chicago for $200 cash and did not receive a bill of sale or title for it. The statement also contained various allegations relating to where and when defendant was working. The government presented the uncontradicted testimony of the alleged employers which refuted the allegations relating to employment.
Defendant contends that since his exculpatory statement was introduced by the Government, it must be taken as true in the absence of proof of its falsity beyond a reasonable doubt. We reject this contention. The readily verifiable facts in the statement were shown to be false by uncontradicted testimony. Accordingly, there is no reason to accord the statement any probative value, much less a presumption which was rejected by the only circuit which ever found it to exist. Puryear v. United States, 378 F.2d 29 (5th Cir. 1967) (per curiam) and cases cited therein at 30 n. 2. See also, 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 909 at 581-585. We believe the court below was correct in considering this statement to be so incredible and patently false that it could infer a consciousness of guilt from it once the uncontradicted testimony was admitted. United States v. Fabric Garment Co., 262 F.2d 631, 639 (2d Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 989, 79 S.Ct. 1117, 3 L.Ed.2d 978 (1959).
Defendant also contends that the corpus delicti was not proved as there was no showing by the Government that he knew that the car was stolen. It is well established, in this Circuit as in all the others, that the possession of a recently stolen vehicle gives rise to an inference of knowledge of its theft in the absence of a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. United States v. Angel, 201 F.2d 531 (7th Cir. 1953), and Annot., 56 A.L.R.2d 1309, 1360 et seq., § 41(a) et seq. The Indiana cases cited to us are inapplicable to this federal prosecution.
We are grateful to William M. Evans of the Indiana Bar who represented the defendant before us as court-appointed counsel.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
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