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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lino Luis FELIX, Appellant.
No. 24875.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 24, 1970.
Norman J. Kaplan, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, David P. Cumow, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY, KOELSCH and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lino Luis Felix appeals from his conviction, after a trial to the court without a jury, on three counts of an indictment charging heroin offenses. The first count charged Felix with knowingly and unlawfully receiving, concealing and facilitating the concealment and transportation of illegally imported heroin on February 20, 1969, contrary to 21 U.S.C. § 174. The second count, also based upon section 174, charged defendant with selling and facilitating the sale of the same heroin on the same date. The third count charged him with knowingly and unlawfully selling the same heroin on the same date to Raymond J. McKinnon, without obtaining from McKinnon a written order on a form issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a). Concurrent five-year sentences were imposed.
Felix argues that the application of the presumption in 21 U.S.C. § 174 deprived him of due process of law because there is not the constitutionally-required rational connection between the presumed facts and the facts actually proved.
The Supreme Court has recently rejected a similar contention. Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970). While Felix thinks Turner was wrongly decided, we are bound by it.
Defendant contends that the convictions are not supported by the evidence. Insofar as counts one and two are concerned, this argument is predicated on the view that the testimony of the Government witness, Carl Stiles, was so “improbable” and he was “so shoddy a witness” that the convictions cannot properly be grounded upon it, and that, without his testimony, counts one and two were not proved. Defendant grants that the credibility of witnesses is a matter for the trier of fact. But he seeks to discount that rule by calling attention to the fact that Stiles was an accomplice and that therefore his testimony must be received and considered with great caution. See Moody v. United States, 376 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1967).
We find nothing in the record to indicate that the trial judge, who was the fact-finder, did not receive and consider S.tiles’ testimony with great caution. While there were certain inconsistencies and discrepancies in Stiles’ testimony, we do not accept defendant’s appraisal of this witness as “shoddy” or of his testimony as “improbable.” In any event, it is not for the appellate court to determine the credibility of witnesses or to weigh the evidence. Pederson v. United States, 392 F.2d 41, 43 (9th Cir. 1968).
Felix argues that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant his motion for a new trial. The motion was based upon assertedly newly-discovered evidence as to Carl Stiles' truth and veracity and his character as a witness.
The motion was not supported by an affidavit. The “evidence” referred to was principally hearsay and therefore inadmissible. The “evidence” pertained solely to the credibility of a witness. Under these circumstances we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Evalt v. United States, 382 F.2d 424, 428-429 (9th Cir. 1967).
Defendant’s remaining arguments were addressed to his conviction, under the third count, of a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a). The sentences were concurrent and therefore, in the exercise of our discretion, we decline to consider the constitutional and other problems defendant poses with respect to that count. See Jordan v. United States, 416 F.2d 338, 346 (9th Cir. 1969).
Affirmed.

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