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:
Helen STEIN, Widow and Administratrix of the succession of Awtrey C. Gaudet, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEA-LAND SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 30525
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 29, 1971.
Stuart A. McClendon, McClendon & McClendon, Metairie, La., for defendant-appellant.
George W. Reese, Peter J. Abadie, Jr., Reese & Abadie, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Andrew T. Martinez, Terriberry, Rault, Carroll, Yancey & Farrell, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Before WISDOM, COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
. The judgment appealed from was entered August 13, 1970 following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff Awtrey C. Gaudet for money damages in the amount of $140,000.00. Between verdict and final judgment Mr. Gaudet died June 29, 1970. After the entry of this appeal the present plaintiff-appellee was substituted upon motion and without objection.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
The original appellee Awtrey C. Gaudet was injured when he slipped and injured his back coming from a tier of cargo to the deck while working as a longshore foreman directing the loading of large trailer vans on the weather deck at the No. 3 hatch of the S. S. CLAIBORNE on October 29, 1966, on the navigable waters of the Mississippi River in the city of New Orleans, Louisiana. He brought suit asserting that the accident and his resulting injury was caused by the unseaworthiness of the vessel in that it was not provided with ladders to go from tier to deck and further that the deck was greasy. The jury verdict by answers to special interrogatories found that the vessel was unseaworthy and that this was the proximate cause of Gaudet’s injury, that Gaudet was contributorily negligent and that his contributory negligence, expressed in percentage, contributed approximately 20% to his injury. The jury assessed the amount of the damages necessary to fairly compensate Gaudet for the injury at $175,000.00. After trial before the trial court and again on this appeal, the defendant-appellee raised questions attacking the jury verdict. These attacks were mounted by motions for directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s case, by motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, by motion for new trial, all on grounds of insufficiency of the evidence, and by motion for remittitur or alternatively for new trial on the ground of excessiveness of the verdict. The trial judge in an extensive (but oral and unreported) opinion sustained the verdict and the amount thereof and entered judgment for $140,000.00. We conclude that the trial judge correctly determined that the questions presented to him and on appeal to us represent no more than attempts to upset legitimate credibility choices of the jury. The judgment appealed from was right. It is
Affirmed.
. Owned and operated by Sea-Land Services, Inc., defendant-appellant.

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: 1