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:
Henry SATTERFIELD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 13161.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 14, 1957.
Ward Hudgins, Nashville, Tenn., Harris Gilbert, Nashville, Tenn., on brief, for appellant.
James R. Tuck, Asst. U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., Fred Elledge, Jr., U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., on brief, for appellee.
Before McALLISTER, MILLER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On a trial before the district court without a jury, the court found appellant guilty of embezzlement of money which came into his possession while in the execution of his office as an employee of an agency of the United States, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A., § 654.
Appellant seeks review on the ground that the evidence does not sustain the judgment; and that, according to the statutes of Tennessee, he would be guilty of larceny rather than embezzlement on the evidence adduced before the court.
The evidence discloses that appellant was an employee of the United States, holding the position of Chief Supply Clerk in the Nashville, Tennessee, office of the Director of Internal Revenue; that one of his duties was to distribute mail received at the Cashier’s Office of the Internal Revenue Service; that Postal Inspector B. H. Johnson had mailed $14.00 of his own marked money to Paul Herring, of the “Delinquent Accounts Branch” of the Internal Revenue Service in Nashville; that the envelope containing this marked money was included in other mail which was picked up by other employees of the Internal Revenue Service, in the course of their employment, at the Post Office box used by the Director of Internal Revenue in that city; that the said employees, in the execution of their duties, delivered such mail to the said Cashier’s Office; that, thereafter, postal inspectors searched several postal employees and found the marked money in appellant’s pocketbook when they searched him.
The evidence clearly shows that appellant was specifically assigned by his superiors to the duty of distributing mail from the Cashier’s Office to the other offices.
The federal statute and decisions are here controlling. The embezzlement statutes of the State of Tennessee, relied upon by appellant, apply only to employees and property of State, County, and Municipal Governments, and to employees of private individuals, corporations, and partnerships. Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom such property has been entrusted or into whose hands it has lawfully come. Moore v. United States, 160 U.S. 268, 16 S.Ct. 294, 40 L.Ed. 422. From the evidence, it appears that appellant was an employee of the Internal Revenue Service of the United States; that money, belonging to another, came into his possession in the execution of his office, or course of employment, as a distributor of mail in the office of the Internal Revenue Service; and that he wrongfully converted it to his own use.
“Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, embezzles or wrongfully converts to his own use the money or property of another which comes into his possession or under his control in the execution of such office or employment, or under color or claim of authority as such officer or employee, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned * * * or both * * * ”
No error appearing, and the judgment being sustained by the evidence, it is hereby affirmed.
. Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 654, provides, as follows:

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