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:
WAGES et al. v. UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
No. 10761.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 1, 1948.
William C. Sugg and D. L. Lansden, both of Nashville, Tenn., for appellants.
Ward Hudgins, of Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.
Before ALLEN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises out of the refusal of appellants to answer certain questions propounded at a hearing before the hearing examiner of the United States Civil Service Commission, conducted pursuant to the investigatory powers given the commission under the Hatch Act, 18 U.S.C., § 611. The appellants refused to answer the questions upon the ground, in substance, that the answers might incriminate them. Petitions were filed by the commission for an order requiring each witness to testify under subpoena theretofore issued. Orders to show cause were issued, and after hearing, the District Court ordered each appellant to answer the questions.
The petitions set forth that the commission, believing, as a result of its investigations, that certain administrative and supervisory employees of the State of Tennessee, covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act, “did command, coerce, and advise other such employees in subordinate positions to contribute part of their compensation to a political campaign committee,” issued subpoenas to the ' appellants commanding them to testify as to the facts within their knowledge with reference to-persons charged with violation of the Act. None of the appellants was at any time charged with such violation.
The questions were similar, the following question and answer being typical:
“Q. Mrs. Evans, in May or June of 1946, were you requested by any official or employee of the Division of Forestry to make a contribution to the Democratic-State Campaign Fund?
“A. I decline to answer.”
One appellant was asked whether she had' made such a contribution, and also whether she had signed a statement to that effect. Upon advice of counsel appellants refused to answer the questions, on the ground that the answers might incriminate-them.
We think the judgment of the District Court was correct and must be affirmed.
The pertinent provisions of the statute are as follows: “No officer or employee of any State or local agency whose principal employment is in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or by any Federal agency shall (1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or a nomination for office, or affecting the result thereof, or (2) directly or indirectly coerce, attempt to coerce, command, or advise any other such officer or employee to pay, lend, or contribute any part of his salary or compensation or anything else of value to any party, committee, organization, agency, or person for political purposes. No such officer or employee shall take any active part in political management or in political campaigns. All such persons shall retain the right to vote as they may choose and to express their opinions on all political subjects and candidates. * * *” [18 U.S.C. § 61Z(a)].
These provisions plainly do not penalize the payment of money nor make it a criminal act to make a political contribution. The statute neither expressly nor impliedly prohibits contributions either by individuals or by groups. It penalizes the solicitation of contributions under the circumstances detailed therein.
Nor are we impressed by the contention that a contribution is made criminal by the provision that “No such officer or employee shall take any active part in political management or in political campaigns.” This plainly includes and refers to executive direction of political campaigns and to such activities as making speeches, distribution of literature, house-to-house canvasses, etc.
We are cited to no court decision upon this point, but we think the meaning and the purpose of the statute is plain. It strikes at the evil presented when an official uses his official authority or influence for the purpose of affecting the result of elections or for the purpose of coercing or influencing his staff and subordinate employees to contribute to political funds. The action of the person who pays the money or makes the contribution is not made criminal, either expressly or in the purpose and intendment of the statute.
Moreover, affirmative answers to the questions propounded would not have tended to show that appellants, or any of them, had solicited or received, or were in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving any assessment, subscription or contribution for a political purpose, in violation of § 208, 18 U.S.C.
It follows that the appellants could not be incriminated by answering the questions asked. The District Court was clearly correct in issuing the order appealed from, and it is affirmed.
Now 5 U.S.C.A. § 118k.
In 1948 Revision, 18 U.S.C.A. § 602.

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