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:
KITTY CLOVER, Inc. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
No. 14833.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Nov. 30, 1953.
Clarence T. Spier and William C. Spire, Omaha, Neb. (Spier, Ellick & Spire and David W. Swarr, Omaha, Neb., on the brief), for petitioner.
Frederick U. Reel, Washington, D. C. (George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Nancy M. Sherman, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before SANBORN and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and HARPER, District Judge.
SANBORN, Circuit Judge.
The petitioner asks for the review and reversal of an order of the National Labor Relations Board dated April 8, 1953 (103 N.L.R.B. No. 127). The Board asks for the enforcement of its order.
In a proceeding under Section 10 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., the Board determined that the petitioner, which has a plant in Omaha, Nebraska, and makes and sells potato chips and popcorn, had during 1951 violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(3), (1) by suspending one of its employees and discharging three others because of their activities on behalf of United Packinghouse Workers of America, C.I.O., a labor union, (2) by discharging forty-eight of petitioner’s employees who struck in protest against the discharges, and (3) by refusing the application of some of the strikers for reinstatement. The Board also determined that, by these acts and other conduct, the petitioner had interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization and to engage in concerted activities, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1).
The Board’s order required the petitioner to cease and desist from discouraging membership in the Union or other labor organization by discriminating with respect to employment, and from in any other manner interfering with the rights of petitioner’s employees. The order also required the petitioner to offer reinstatement to seventeen employees who, the Board found, had been dis-criminatorily discharged and not offered reinstatement, and to make whole for loss of pay forty-nine employees who had engaged in the strike.
The issues before the Board were whether the suspension of the one employee and the various discharges of others were the result of the union affiliations and protected activities of the employees involved, as charged by the General Counsel of the Board, or were the result of other causes, as asserted by the petitioner, and whether the petitioner had or had not engaged in interrogation and surveillance of its employees with respect to their union affiliations and activities.
In its brief the petitioner asserts that the issues presented to this Court are:
“(1) Whether or not the discharges of Moore, Gamerl, and Galus were for good cause and not for union activity;
“(2) Whether or not the suspension of Rose Bell was for good cause and not for union activity;
“(3) Whether or not the discharges of July 19, 1951, were for good cause and not an unfair labor practice against employees engaged in a protected concerted activity.”
What the petitioner means to assert is, of course, that the question before this Court is whether there was an adequate evidentiary basis for the Board's determination that the suspension and the discharges were discriminatory and constituted unfair labor practices.
This Court cannot retry and redetermine issues of fact which have been tried and determined by the Board. National Labor Relations Board v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 8 Cir., 179 F.2d 323, 325; Hartsell Mills Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 111 F.2d 291, 293. The Board, as has frequently been pointed out, is the judge of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight of evidence, and may draw inferences from circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence. It is only when the Board’s determination is without adequate support in the evidence or is beyond the scope of the Board’s statutory authority that this Court may set aside an order or refuse its enforcement.
In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., supra, at page 325 of 179 F.2d, this Court said:
“The only question requiring consideration is whether there is an adequate evidentiary basis for the findings and order of the Board. We think that the time has come to abbreviate, so far as possible, opinions in these National Labor Relations Board cases. A detailed review of the evidence is ordinarily futile. The parties are familiar with it, and others are not interested unless some novel question is presented. Almost all of these eases fall into some familiar pattern. The limited scope of our power of review has often been repeated.”
The instant case is of a type entirely familiar to this Court, namely, one in which union members and union supporters are discharged or laid off by an employer during an organizational campaign, the union claiming that the discharges or suspensions were the result of union affiliations or activities, and the employer asserting that good cause existed for its action.
The main events which gave rise to this controversy are not in dispute. All of them took place in 1951. In chronological order, they were as follows: May 26, or about that date, a movement to have the Union organize petitioner’s plant was initiated. On or about June 1, the Union held its first organizational meeting. June 4, Moore and Gamerl, employees of the petitioner who had been active in the union movement in petitioner’s plant, were discharged. On the same day, the Field Representative of the Union, wrote petitioner that the Union represented a majority of petitioner’s employees. He requested a meeting to discuss wages and working conditions. June 7, the petitioner wrote the representative of the Union, questioning his statement that it represented a majority of the petitioner's employees,, and declining his request for a meeting. June 12, the Union filed a representation petition with the Regional Office of the Board. June 19, Rose Bell, an employee of petitioner who had joined the Union and had actively participated in the union movement, was suspended for one week. July 16, Galus, an employee of petitioner who had initiated the union movement in the plant, was discharged. Alberta Sogge, another employee who. had joined and assisted the Union, was also discharged on that day. July 18, a hearing was held on the representation petition of the Union. On the same day, the Union held a meeting, at which it was proposed to protest the discharges of Galus and Alberta Sogge. July 19, thirty-five of petitioner’s employees, wearing Union buttons, left their work in the plant during working hours and unsuccessfully sought an interview with Mrs. Lou C. Lippold, Secretary-Treasurer of petitioner. She refused to meet with them as a group, and, upon their refusal to return to work, they were discharged. These employees and others went on strike. July 30, a committee representing all the striking employees, forty-nine in number, presented to petitioner an offer to return to their jobs. October 4, the petitioner wrote thirty-two of these employees offering reinstatement. Seventeen were not offered reinstatement. October 15, fifteen of the employees who had been offered reinstatement responded and were employed by the petitioner.
We have read and considered the entire record in this case, and have reached the conclusion that the findings and order of the Board are supported by substantial evidence. The case, in principle, differs in no controlling respect from other cases of a similar type in which the findings of the Board have been held to be within the evidence. See and compare, Carter Carbureter Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 140 F.2d 714; N.L.R.B. v. Winona Knitting Mills, Inc., 8 Cir., 163 F.2d 156; N.L.R.B. v. Dixie Shirt Co., Inc., 4 Cir., 176 F.2d 969; N.L.R.B. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., supra, 179 F.2d 323; N.L.R.B. v. Kennametal, Inc., 3 Cir., 182 F.2d 817, 19 A.L.R.2d 562; N.L.R.B. v. Ozark Hardwood Co., 8 Cir., 194 F.2d 963; N.L.R.B. v. J. I. Case Co., Bettendorf Works, 8 Cir., 198 F.2d 919; Modern Motors, Inc., v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 198 F.2d 925; N.L.R.B. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 8 Cir., 203 F.2d 139, 147. In the case last cited, this court said: “Questions of motive, intent, good faith, and the like, if at all doubtful, are questions of fact, and men may reasonably be presumed to intend the natural and necessary consequences of what they do.”
It is our conclusion that the controlling issues in this case were, under the evidence, issues of fact for the Board, and are not issues of law for this Court.
The Board’s request for enforcement of its order is granted.

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