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:
TIMELL v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth. Circuit.
May 18, 1925.)
No. 4510.
1. Criminal law <@=>829(I) — Requested instructions properly refused.
Where the charge given is full and fair to defendant, it is not error to refuse requested instructions making specific reference to the evidence.
2. Intoxicating liquors <@=169 — Doctrine of agency not applicable to unlawful possession.
One charged with unlawful possession of liquor is not entitled to acquittal on the ground that his possession was as agent of another.
3. Criminal law <@=830 — One erroneous proposition of law in a requested instruction justifies its refusal.
It is not error to refuse a requested instruction containing several propositions of law, one of which is unsound.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the District of Idaho; Frank S. Dietrich, Judge.
Criminal prosecution by the United States against Albert Timell. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
W. B. McFarland, of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and W. D. Keeton, of St. Maries, Idaho, for plaintiff in error.
E. G. Davis, U. S. Atty., W. H. Langroise, and James F. Ailshie, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Boise, Idaho.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
HUNT, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff in error, Timell, was convicted under a count charging possession, and ánother charging sale, of a quantity of moonshine whisky.
Jumstrong, a deputy sheriff, testified r That he saw Timell at a boarding house at St. Maries, Idaho; that in the morning, about breakfast time, he asked Timell, who conducted the boarding house in which the conversation was had, whether there was any chance to get a drink of whisky, saying he had been wet, and believed a drink would warm up his stomach. Timell said that he could get him a bottle; that about an hour afterward Timell handed him a bottle of moonshine whisky, for which he paid Timell $3.50; that Bracken, a federal prohibition officer, was present at the time of the sale. Bracken testified that he heard Armstrong ask Timell if he knew where he could get a bottle, as he had been fishing and was cold and wet, that after they returned to the house, about an hour after the conversation, Timell asked Armstrong if -he still wanted the whisky, that he saw Armstrong hand $3.-50 to Timell, and that the bottle contained moonshine whisky.
Timell testified in his own behalf that Armstrong said he was sick and had a stomachache; that after Armstrong had importuned him five or six times, he told Armstrong that if he was “feeling that bad, and was going to die,” he would try and get something for him, but that he did not know whether he could or not; that pursuant to that conversation he bought a bottle of whis-ky for him, and was paid for it the same sum that he paid to the man from whom he bought the liquor.
The principal assignments of error are based upon the giving of certain instructions and the refusal to give certain requests. The court, after stating that the issue turned upon the question as to what inducements were held out by the government witnesses to dé-, fendant, as a result of which he procured and furnished the liquor, said that it was entirely proper for .persons engaged in detecting crime to go about under cover, or unidentified, and, where they suspected that, liquor was being sold or kept in violation of the law, to go to the suspected person and propose a violation of the law by asking for liquor, and added:
“Upon the other hand, it is not proper for one representing the government as a special agent, either under cover or otherwise, by representations as to his physical condition —that is, by feigning to be in agony or great pain, or seriously ill — to play upon the sympathies of a citizen, and thus get him to violate the law. You will see the distinction between the two eases. Now for one to simply say that he is cold and tyould like to have something to warm up his stomach, or that he has been wet and that a drink of whisky might make him feel better, that wouldn’t be a violation of the law. But, upon the other hand, and I am amplifying somewhat, so that you will see that, while the line may not be so easily defined, still by using your common sense you will see the difference between what is proper and what is improper. As I have already indicated, an agent cannot go further, and feign serious illness, or pretend that he is in very great pain, and thus appeal, as I say, to the sympathies of a citizen, and get him to do what otherwise he would not think of doing; that is, violate the law for the purpose of relieving what is supposed to be agony or pain of a fellow man.”
The court also charged that it was for the jury to. say upon which side the truth was. “Did the officers go there, as the defendant contends, and one of them pretend to be in very great pain, and thus play upon the sympathy and compassion of the defendant? If so, you should acquit. Upon the other hand, if the deputy sheriff, Armstrong, simply suggested that he was wet, and a drink of whisky, a bottle of whisky, might warm .up his stomach, or make him feel better, something of that kind, that would be within his rights, and you could properly convict.”
Those instructions were specially fair tó the defendant, and he was not prejudiced by the refusal of the court 'to give his requests, containing more detailed references to the testimony. Ritter v. United States (C. C. A.) 293 F. 187; Goldberg v. United States (C. C. A.) 295 F. 447; Newman v. United States (C. C. A.) 299 F. 128; Bakotich v. United States (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 380.
' Error is also assigned upon the refusal of the court to charge that, if the jury believed Timell acted as the agent of Armstrong, and simply as a messenger in the purchase of the whisky, and was not pecuniarily interested, then Timell was a purchaser, and not a seller, and should be acquitted. Whatever might have been said of the request, if it had been limited to the evidence under the count which charged a sale, it was clearly erroneous in assuming that one who has liquor in his possession must be acquitted of the charge of unlawful possession, if he can prove that possession was merely as the agent of another. The doctrine of agency is not applicable to such a ease. State v. Caswell, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 399; State v. Chauvin, 231 Mo. 31, 132 S. W. 243, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 992; State v. Bugbee, 22 Vt. 32.
Where a requested instruction contains several propositions of law, one of which is unsound, refusal to grant the request is not error. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Humble, 181 U. S. 57, 21 S. Ct. 526, 45 L. Ed. 747; Chicago & Great Western v. Roddy, 131 F. 718, 65 C. C. A. 470; 14 R. C. L. 800; 16 C. J. § 2507. We find no error.
The judgment is 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