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:
Melvin Leon DEATON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 9521.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Oct. 6, 1967.
James Bounds, Hugo, Okl, for appellant.
William J. Settle, Asst. U. S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl. (Bruce Green, U. S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl., on the brief) for appellee.
Before PICKETT, HILL and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was tried and convicted before a jury on four counts, all charging violations of the Internal Revenue laws relating to nontaxpaid distilled spirits. In this direct appeal he urges reversible error because “Inconsistency and improvement of the testimony of prosecution witnesses who had testified at a previous trial were prejudicial to the right of the defendant to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Deaton was tried twice in this case. The first trial resulted in a jury disagreement and a second trial was subsequently had, from which comes this appeal. Witness Logan, an Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Agent, testified at both trials. In the first trial he testified about his surveillance of the premises where the violations occurred at a time prior to the arrest of Deaton. At the second trial Logan gave the same testimony and in addition testified about a conversation he overheard during the surveillance between Deaton and his father and that Deaton had “let out a whoop” as Logan got out of the car at the time of the arrests. It is this additional testimony that is under attack.
Appellant’s contention is wholly without merit. It is undisputed that at the first trial no question was asked of Logan about the conversation. Such a question was asked of him at the second trial and the answer under attack was given. Counsel for appellant was then permitted to cross-examine Logan upon the fact that at the first trial he had given no testimony as to the conversation. Logan’s previous testimony was read back to him and he readily admitted that he had not testified at the first trial about any such conversation. There also appears to be no dispute about the testimony concerning the “whoop.” Counsel for appellant did not cross-examine the witness on this point and no argument is made concerning this matter in appellant’s brief. We have no way of knowing whether this was testimony not given at the first trial or whether it was given in response to a question asked at the second trial and not at the first. In any respect the witness’ testimony on this point is the same as numerous other government witnesses present at the arrest.
The point raised is simply an attack upon the credibility of the witness. The credibility of witnesses is a matter for the jury in each case to consider after proper instruction from the trial judge. The record shows that the trial judge gave the jury a proper instruction upon the credibility of witnesses and we must assume that the jury made a determination of witness Logan’s credibility, but it was adverse to appellant’s contentions.
It is appropriate to add that we have carefully reviewed the entire trial record and conclude that appellant was afforded a fair and impartial trial notwithstanding the outcome.
Affirmed.
. United States v. Hoffa, 6 Cir., 349 F.2d 20, 38; Bragg v. United States, 10 Cir., 330 F.2d 44; Corbin v. United States, 10 Cir., 253 F.2d 646.

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