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:
PALARDY v. AMERICAN-HAWAIIAN S. S. CO.
No. 9592.
Circuit Court of Appeals Third Circuit
Argued June 23, 1948.
Decided Aug. 4, 1948.
Abraham E. Freedman, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Milton M. Borowsky, Charles Lakatos, and Freedman, Landy & Lorry, all of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Thomas E. Byrne, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa. (John A. Friedrich and Krusen, Evans & Shaw, all of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Leavenworth Colby, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen. (H. G. Morison, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Frank Staley, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., Admiralty and Shipping Section, Department of Justice, on the brief), amicus curiae.
Before BIGGS, MARIS, GOODRICH, McLaughlin, and ogonnell, circuit Judges.
MARIS, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff, Albert J. Palardy, is a longshoreman-carpenter who was employed by the Luckenbach Steamship Company in connection with the loading of the cargo of the S. S. Niantic Victory at Philadelphia on June 20, 1946. He was injured in the course of his work on that day as the result of the alleged negligent disconnecting by a member of the crew of the vessel of an extension electric light which had been illuminating the hold in which he was at work shoring up cargo. The Niantic Victory was owned by the United States and had been assigned to the defendant, American-Hawaiian Steamship Company, as general agent for the United States under the standard form of general agency service agreement in use by the War Shipping Administration during the war. Palardy instituted a suit in admiralty in the district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the United States to recover for his injuries. He also instituted in the same court the present civil action against the defendants seeking the same recovery. From a judgment upon a directed verdict for the defendant he brings the appeal now before us.
The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant upon two grounds. First he held that under the rule laid down in Caldarola v. Eckert, 1947, 332 U.S. 155, 67 S.Ct. 1569, 91 L.Ed. 1968, the defendant could not be held liable for the alleged tort of the crew member and, second, he ruled that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of any member of the crew which would support a verdict for the plaintiff in any event. Since we are satisfied that the trial judge’s first ground was well taken we have no need to consider his second.
As we have had occasion to point out in two other cases decided this day, Aird v. Weyerhaeuser Steamship Company, 169 F.2d 606, and Gaynor v. Agwilines, Inc., 169 F.2d 612, a general agent for the United States, such as American-Hawaiian Steamship Company, acting under the standard form of general agency service agreement in use during the period in question is not an operating agent or owner pro hac vice of the vessel assigned to it but rather is a shoreside agent or ship’s husband employed to manage the business of the vessel. The possession of the vessel and its management and operation remain with the United States through its direct employee and agent, the master.
Under these circumstances the general agent does not owe a duty of care to third persons with respect to the management and operation by the master and crew of the vessel assigned to it by the government. It was expressly so held by the Supreme Court in Caldarola v. Eckert, 1947, 332 U.S. 155, 159, 67 S.Ct. 1569, 91 L.Ed. 1968, the case relied upon by the trial judge and which involved a claim by an injured longshoreman against the general agent of the government merchant vessel upon which he was injured. Upon the authority of that case the judgment in this case must be affirmed.
The plaintiff, however, strongly urges that certain evidence offered in the present case establishes that the defendant was in possession of the Niantic Victory and, therefore, he argues, the Caldarola case is not applicable. He refers to the certificate of delivery which passed between the War Shipping Administration and the defendant on May 18, 1944 at Portland, Oregon, and the certificate of redelivery which passed between the same parties on November 6, 1946 at Boston, Massachusetts. We think, however, that the presence of these certificates in evidence did not lay the basis for finding that the defendant was owner pro hac vice of the Niantic Victory contrary to the ruling of the Caldarola case. On the contrary it appears that the Supreme Court had similar delivery certificates before it in the Caldarola case. For the plaintiff in the case before us concedes that Caldarola brought the existence of such certificates to the attention of the Supreme Court in the petition for rehearing which he filed in that case and urged that in view of them the court’s ruling that Eckert was not in possession of the vessel should be reconsidered, The Supreme Court, however, denied Caldarola’s petition for rehearing, 332 U.S. 784, 68 S.Ct. 30. Its action can only mean that it did not regard the certificates as controlling in this connection.
The certificates in question state that the S. S. Niantic Victory was “delivered” by the War Shipping Administration to the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company on May 18, 1944, and “redelivered” by the latter to the United States Maritime Commission on November 6, 1946 “under the terms and conditions of Contract WSA 206, service agreement Form GAA, said agreement having been executed March 6, 1942, having on board full stores and equipment as per inventories taken.” Contract WSA 206, service agreement Form GAA, was the standard form of general agency service agreement which the parties had signed on March 6, 1942. As we have held in the Aird and Gaynor cases and as the Supreme Court indicated in the Caldarola case the general agent under that agreement does not acquire possession of the vessel or become owner pro hac vice but is merely a shoreside agent or ship’s husband. As such, however, he is responsible for equipping, victualing, supplying and maintaining the vessel. The use of the words “delivered” and “redelivered” read in the light of the express reference to the general agency service agreement must, therefore, refer to the beginning and end of the agent’s responsibility for maintaining the vessel and providing it with necessary stores and equipment. Indeed the reference in each certificate to an inventory of the stores and equipment on board taken on the date of the certificate makes this even clearer. It was the stores and equipment on board, all of which were the agent’s responsibility, with which the parties were primarily concerned. The vessel itself being in the physical possession of a direct employee of the government, the master, could not in fact have been the subject of delivery consistently with the agreement,
As a matter of fact the use of the word “deliver” is not uncommon in maritime contracts which do not contemplate the transfer of possession of the vessel involved. Thus the word used in a time or voyage charter has frequently been held not to evidence a demise or transfer of possession and control so as to impose liability for negligence of the master and crew. As the Supreme Court of Oregon said in Grimberg v. Columbia Packers’ Ass’n, 1905, 47 Or. 257, 270, 271, 83 P. 194, 199, 114 Am.St. Rep. 927, 8 Ann.Cas. 491, “So, with the stipulations concerning acceptance, delivery, and redelivery, considering the other conditions of the charter party. These terms are more readily reconcilable with the idea of their employment with reference to the commencement and termination of the charter party than that they portend a transfer of the possession, control, and management of the ship from one party to the other.”
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed,
7 F.R. 7561, 46 C.F.R. Cum.Supp. § 306.44.
Article 3A (e) of the general agency service agreement provides: “Article 3A. To the best of its ability, the General Agent shall for the account of the United States:
* ** ********
“(c) Equip, victual, supply and maintain the vessels, subject to such directions, orders, regulations and methods of supervision and inspection as the United States may from time to time prescribe;”
Adams v. Homeyer, 1870, 45 Mo. 545, 551-553, 100 Am.Dec. 391; Grimberg v. Columbia Packers’ Ass’n, 1905, 47 Or. 257, 270, 271, 83 P. 194, 199, 119 Am. St.Rep. 927, 8 Ann.Cas. 491; Clyde Commercial S. S. Co. v. West India S. S. Co., 2 Cir., 1909, 169 F. 275, 277; The Volund, 2 Cir., 1910, 181 F. 643, 665-667.

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