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:
COLEMAN v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
January 5, 1925.)
No. 4299.
I. Indictment and information <§=>! 11 (I) — indictment sufficient, though not alleging defendant was person required to be registered.
Count in indictment based on Harrison Anti-Narcotie Act Dec. 17, 1914, § 2 (Comp. St. § 6287h), for unlawfully selling, bartering, exchanging, or giving away contraband drugs, which did not allege that defendant was one of the persons required to register under section 1 (Comp. St. § G287g), held sufficient; the latter section not limiting the former, and section 8 (Comp. St. § 6287n) specifically providing that indictment need not negative exceptions specified in the act.
2. Criminal law <§=>1056(1) — Errors predicated on refusal of requested instructions not reviewable, in absence of exceptions.
In prosecution for violation of Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act (Comp. St. §§ 6287g-6287q'), errors in refusing to give instructions as to entrapment are not reviewable, where no exceptions were preserved to the charge on that point, or to the refusal of defendant’s request.
In Error to the District Court of. the United States for the Northern Division of the Northern District of California; John 8. Partridge, Judge.
Stuart Coleman was convicted of violation of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
P. H. Johnson, of San Francisco, Cal., and H. W. Coale, of Stockton, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
Sterling Carr, U. S. Atty., and T. J. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
HUNT, Circuit Judge.
Coleman, defendant in the District Court, was convicted under a count of an indictment which, after the formal parts, charged that he did “unlawfully and feloniously sell, barter, exchange, and give away to one Ira Curtis a certain quantity of a certain preparation and -derivative of opium, to wit, one package of morphine, approximately four grains, and did then and there soil, barter, exchange, and give away said quantity of morphine without, and not in pursuance of a written order of the said Ira Curtis on a form issued in blank ford-hat purpose by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the United States.” The count was based upon section 2 of the Act of Congress of December 17, 1914 (38 Stat. 785 [Comp. St. § 6287h]), which provides that “it shall he unlawful for any person to sell, barter, exchange, or give away any of the aforesaid drugs except in pursuance of a written order of the person to whom such article is sold, bartered, exchanged, or given, on a form to be issued in blank for that purpose by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.”
The evidence of the government was that about April, 1921, a government narcotic inspector, with a government agent and Ira Curtis, went to Stockton, where Curtis, who was an informer, went to Coleman’s office and brought back a package of morphine hydrochloride. The two government agents then went to Coleman’s office and placed him under arrest. Upon Ms person, they found some of the marked money that had been paid to him by Curtis. They also found heroin and morphine in the defendant’s office and a vial of morphine in Ms overcoat. The defendant told the agents that he had obtained the morphine from a Chinaman. No records were found in the defendant’s office, except an envelope with “two or three notices” upon it. The order book was found, but the first page and duplicate had been tom off. Coleman could produce no record of his opium sales.
Coleman testified that he was a licensed, practicing physician; that he never sold morphine to any one before April 5, 1921, but that upon that date Curtis, who was known to him to be an addict, told Mm he was suffering and could not get morphine, whereupon, out of sympathy, defendant gave Curtis a package; that Curtis gave Mm $2; that he told Curtis he did not want the money; that he kept the $2. Defendant admitted that he himself used morphine for facial trouble.
Defendant’s counsel argue that the indictment is fatally defective, because it fails to allege that defendant is or was one of the persons required to register under section 1 of the act referred to (Comp. St. § 6287g), or pay a tax. The indictment follows the language of the statute. It specifies the time, place, gives the name of the person to whom the drug was sold, describes the drug, and alleges want of written order of the buyer on a form issued in blank by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Section 1 of the statute does not limit the applicability of the provisions of section 2 to persons who import, manufacture, produce, compound, and sell, or to persons included within the provisions of section 8 of the act (Comp. St. § 6287n). The latter section (8) is applicable to persons not registered, while section 2 provides generally that it shall be unlawful for any person to sell, barter, exchange, etc. United States v. Wong Sing, 260 U. S. 18, 43 S. Ct. 7, 67 L. Ed. 105.
The indictment does not allege that Coleman was a physician, or that he was registered or practicing as a physician. But it is not necessary for the pleader to allege that the sale or barter between Coleman and Curtis was not in the course of the practice of Coleman as a physician. An indictment drawn under- the provisions of section 2 need not negative the existence of any of the conditions contained in section 2. In other words, if Coleman’s acts were proper, because done by Mm while he was lawfully practicing as a physician, it became incumbent upon him to interpose that defense. Weare v. United States (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 617; Manning v. United States (C. C. A.) 275 F. 29; Hurwitz v. United States (C. C. A.) 299 F. 449. Furthermore, the concluding proviso of section 8 of the act referred to provides that it shall not be necessary to negative any of the aforesaid exemptions in any indictment or proceeding laid or brought under the act. It refers, not merely to the exemptions specified in section 8, but also to those mentioned anywhere in the act. Such is the expressed ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Nelson v. United States, 298 F. 93, and in Fyke v. United States, 254 F. 225, 165 C. C. A. 513. We hold that the indictment is sufficient.
Counsel say that the evidence shows that defendant was entrapped into the commission of the offense charged. • The court,however, in its instructions, covered any possible question of entrapment, and, as no exceptions were preserved to the charge upon that point, or to the refusal to give instructions offered by defendant, it cannot be contended that there was error in refusing to charge as requested. Joyce v. United States (C. C. A.) 294 F. 665.
We find no error and affirm the judgment.

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