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:
Le Roy HESTER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 6816.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
April 28, 1962.
Arnold D. Fagin, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., was with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges, and RITTER, District Judge.
LEWIS, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was convicted after trial by jury in the District of Kansas upon each of three counts of an indictment charging the unlawful trafficking in narcotics. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years upon each count, such sentences to run concurrently. He now appeals and with the aid of appointed counsel urges error in the trial upon three grounds: insufficiency of the evidence to support conviction under Count 3 of the charge; error in the court’s instructions; and lack of effective assistance of counsel at the trial.
No claim is made that a judgment of conviction upon Counts 1 and 2 is not amply supported by the evidence nor that the total sentence imposed is not proper under either of these counts. In such case an attack upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction under Count 3, even if warranted, cannot invalidate appellant’s sentence nor result in relief granted. Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 49 S.Ct. 268, 73 L.Ed. 692; McMurray v. United States, 10 Cir., 298 F.2d 619.
Appellant’s complaint relative to the court’s instructions is based upon the contention that the evidence warranted an instruction upon the issue of entrapment. No such issue was claimed at the trial nor was objection made to the court’s failure to instruct upon entrapment. We would not ordinarily consider the present claim when not properly premised in the record but are constrained to do so because of the companion claim of lack of adequate representation by trial counsel.
The crux of the government’s case rested in the testimony of a “special employee” who was used by government narcotic agents to effectuate several purchases of heroin from appellant. The “special employee” in each instance was searched by a government agent, given fifteen dollars in marked money, allowed to make contact with appellant while under visual observation by regular agents, and was again searched after making such contact with appellant. Upon this second search the “special employee” was found to have obtained heroin and disposed of the money. He testified:
“I told him (appellant) that I would like to purchase some narcotics, and he said he thought it was possible, and I purchased three capsules of heroin from him.”
Appellant did not testify and the informer’s version of the purchase remained totally uncontradicted.
We find no merit to the contention that the issue of entrapment rests against this background of events. Rather the circumstances point directly to the establishment of a simple opportunity to commit crime with the appellant subjectively mistaking the safety of the circumstances. This is not entrapment. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 485, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413; Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848; Masciale v. United States, 356 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 827, 2 L.Ed.2d 859; Marshall v. United States, 10 Cir., 293 F.2d 561.
A careful review of the trial proceedings indicates that appellant was adequately represented by trial counsel and that his rights under the Sixth Amendment were not violated. It is true, as present counsel emphasizes, that counsel did not voice a single objection during the course of the trial proceedings. This trial technique may sometimes be indicative of lack of experience but in other circumstances may be the considered practice of the skillful attorney. In the case at bar the prosecution presented a careful and complete case to which appellant apparently had no answer. Neither vigor nor skill can overcome truth. Success is not the test of effective assistance of counsel. Mitchell v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 259 F.2d 787.
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