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:
WHITING CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
No. 10661.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Dec. 2, 1952.
Quentin Ogren and Carl M. Gould, Los Angeles, Cal., Robert N. Denham, Washington, D. C., Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Los Angeles, Cal., for Whiting Corp.
A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Dominick L. Manoli, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Mark C. Curran, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, and DUFFY and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges.
LINDLEY, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner, Whiting Corporation, who has its main office and plant in the Northern District of Illinois but operates a branch in Norwalk, California, at which some 36 men are employed, seeks a review of an order entered May 14, 1952 by the National Labor Relations Board directing it to' bargain with the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers of America, Local Number 92, A. F. of L., hereinafter referred to as the union, as the bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees at the branch. In its; order, the Board determined that on February 16, 1951 arid all times thereafter the union was. the employees’ authorized bargaining representative. The propriety of this finding, in turn, - depends upon the Board’s subordinate finding that the union had been legally selected as the bargaining agent for the employees at an election on October 18, 1950, at which it had been reported that 18 votes had been cast for and 17 against the union.
Petitioner, after the intermediate report in this case, filed a motion to reopen the representation proceedings and to have a further hearing therein for the purpose of determining the eligibility of John Norgard to vote at the election, which petitioner had challenged. This motion having been allowed and the rehearing had, the presiding officer concluded, and the Board in its order of May 14, 1952 agreed, that Norgard was eligible. His vote made the majority. Therefore, the Board found that the union had been properly certified as the representative of the employees for collective bargaining, and, further, that' petitioner, having refused to bargain with the union, was guilty of an unfair labor practice. It is this feature of the record with which we are concerned, namely, the question as to whether Norgard was eligible to participate in the election, for, if he was not, the union did not receive a majority, while if he was qualified, the union did prevail. If, upon the scrutiny of the record prescribed by the Act and discussed in N. L. R. B. v. Universal Camera Corp., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S. Ct. 456, 464, 95 L.Ed. 456,-we find that the evidence does not adequately support the Board’s finding in this respect, then the union was not the employees’ representative for collective bargaining and the order declaring petitioner guilty of an unfair labor practice in failing to negotiate with it-must fall. , ,
The Supreme Court, • in N. L. .R., B. v. Universal Camera Corp., supra,,has defined-the nature of our review under the present law as follows: “ * * * Congress has left no room for doubt as to the kind of-scrutiny which a court of appeals must give the record before the Board to satisfy itself .that the Board’s order rests on adequate proof. * * .* courts must now assume more responsibility for the reasonableness and fairness of Labor Board decisions than some courts have shown in the. past. Reviewing courts must be influenced by a feeling that they are not to abdicate the conventional judicial function. Congress has imposed on them responsibility for assuring that the Board keeps within reasonable, bounds.” Consequently, in resolving, this specific question of fact, in order to ascertain whether it “rests on ade-. quate proof”, it has been necessary to examine in detail those parts of the record submitted to us by the respective parties, bearing upon the question.
The most telling evidence in this respect came from ' Norgard’s fellow-workmen. This employee worked in a small steel fabricating plant,'where his labor was arduous. He was 68 or 69 years old and had developed a severe, long-standing case of arthritis. His doctor had advised him to cease work, and after September 26, 1950, he did no work. In the two weeks immediately preceding that date he talked with various of his fellow employees, who, so far as this record discloses, entertained no other than a friendly attitude toward him. Thus, Fa-gen testified that, about a week before Nor-gard left, he told the witness that his- wife was coming home from the hospital; that, after he “had thought it all over,” he would be “money ahead,” if he stayed home; that he could draw social security benefits, and that he did not think that he would ever be back. When Fagen suggested that he could not draw unemployment compensation without a doctor’s certificate of disability, Norgard replied that he already had such a certificate. Shaftstall, another coemployee, testified tjiat, early in September, Norgard told him it would be “cheaper” for him-, Norgard, to draw his old-age statutory benefits and stay at home; that at the end of each week he would still have a little money left, and' that he could do “a lot better” on the benefits. Sandvig, another fellow-workman,, testified that No.rgard told him a week or so before he left that he, felt that he should retire; that his leg was bothering him, and that he thought he would retire and take care of his wife. Still another fellow-employee, Kirkendall, .testified that about a week before Norgard left he told the witness that he did not think he would come back to work.
It is clear from the undisputed testimony of these disinterested fellow-workmen that Norgard had carefully considered his situation and determined that he would quit work, secure unemployment compensation, an old-age pension and social security benefits and live on what he would receive from these sources. Mr. Norgard, himself, apparently an honest and truthful man, said that he remembered little of what he had said to other people but did testify, at a date some two years after the incident had occurred, that he had not quit work on September 26; yet the fact remains that he left at that time and never returned. His job foreman testified that he said he was too old to work and that he would either have to quit or have the company lay him off; that he would prefer that the company “lay him off,” so that he could draw unemployment insurance. Norgard said he did not recall this statement, but did not deny making it.
It appears undisputed that petitioner’s supervisory employees had a friendly feeling of sympathy and kindness for Norgard and were endeavoring to help him devise a plan whereby he would avoid being discharged or voluntarily quit working, thus jeopardizing some of his statutory allowances. In pursuance of their desire to help him, they noted, as a temporary measure, that he was suspended on account of illness. But a successor in his employment was immediately secured and he never returned or asked for reemployment.
It is clear that Norgard, after consulting his physician, recognized that he was not able to work any longer; that he was convinced that he should not try to do so, and that he would be better off .financially and physically if he quit working, took care of his wife at home and drew statutory benefits and assistance than he would if he tried to work. His wavering, .uncertain testimony can not outweigh the volume;of disinterested testimony of otner witnesses m this respect. The undisputed testimony that he was recorded as suspended temporarily only because of the intimate relationship between the supervising officers and the employees in this small plant, the obvious desire of those officers to help the old employee bring his labors to an end in a manner which would not prejudice his rights to statutory benefits, in the light of other relevant and undisputed facts, indicate clearly that from and after September 26, 19'50 Norgard was no longer an employee of the company, never expected to work again, and was, therefore, disqualified as a participant in the election.
The Board’s finding that Norgard was still an employee is contrary to all the testimony except that; of Norgard, himself. The entirely reasonable testimony, showing clearly the reasons for doing what was done, by other witnesses and all other relevant facts, are convincing. They can not be overcome by the later statement o f Norgard that he had asked to be “laid off for a while,” which is the only bit of testimony in the record to sustain the finding, and which is inconsistent with voluminous credible evidence to the contrary. Wc think the conclusion inescapable that the Board failed to give to the eyidence that consideration required by N. L. R. B. v. Universal Camera Corp., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L. Ed. 456.
It seems well established by the Board’s own decisions, . The Massillon Aluminum Company, 27 N.L.R.B. 165; Western Union Telegraph Company, 32 N. L.R.B. 210 at 215; Van Brunt Mfg. Co., 45 N.L.R.B. 634 at 636; W. D. Byron & Sons of Maryland,- Inc., 55 N.L.R.B. 172 at 174, that whether one is an employee is a question to be determined by his reasonable expectation of employment within a reasonable time in the future. We find no escape from the clearly established fact that Norgard had no such expectation.
The union was never legally selected as the bargaining1 representative of the employees. Upon review of the whole record, we can not satisfy ourselves that the essential finding by the Board to the contrary is supported by -adequate proof.
In view of our conclusions, we . do not reach the procedural questions presented.
The order is set aside.

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