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:
W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ATLANTA LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14935.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 3, 1963.
John Bacheller, Jr., Atlanta, Ga. (Fisher & Phillips, Ray C. Muller, Robert J. Berghel, Atlanta, Ga., on the brief), for appellant.
Jacob I. Karro, United States Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C. (Charles Donahue, Sol. of Labor, Jack H. Weiner, Atty., United States Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., Jeter S. Ray, Regional Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before O’SULLIVAN and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BOYD, District Judge.
PERCURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee enjoining defendant-appellant from violating Sections 15(a) (1), 15 (a) (2) and 15(a) (5) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 215(a) (1), 215(a) (2), 215(a) (5) (failure to keep records and to pay overtime wages to some of its employees).
Defendant-appellant, Atlanta Life Insurance Company, is engaged in the insurance business in several states, including Tennessee. Its employees are engaged in commerce and in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The sole question involved here is whether certain of Atlanta Life’s employees, variously designated as salesmen-supervisors or supervisors, are “outside salesmen” who are exempt from coverage of the Act by reason of Section 13(a) (1) thereof, 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(a) (1), and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 29 C.F.R. § 541.
The question whether or not employees are exempt from the operation of the Fair Labor Standards Act is primarily one of fact. Fletcher v. Grinnell Bros., 150 F.2d 337, 340 (C.A.6, 1945); Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U.S. 545, 550, 67 S.Ct. 883, 91 L.Ed. 1088. The findings of fact made by the District .Judge in this regard may not be set aside on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Walling v. General Industries Co., 155 F.2d 711, 714 (C.A.6, 1946), affirmed, 330 U.S. 545, 67 S.Ct. 883, 91 L.Ed. 1088. Likewise, we may not set aside factual inferences drawn from undisputed basic facts unless they are clearly erroneous. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 291, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218.
The District Judge found that the employees in question, whom he termed supervisors, each directed and supervised the work of four to six sales agents, known in the trade as “debit men.” The supervisors’ remuneration was on an hourly basis, varying from $1.02 to $1.06 per hour, plus a quarterly or semi-annual commission. He found that these supervisors assisted in the training of agents, made reports with regard to the operations of the agents under their control, reviewed and approved applications for insurance, and held daily meetings with such agents. From time to time, each supervisor was assigned to work directly with one of his agents, accompanying such agent on the agent’s “debit” route and assisting him with his collections and sales. Such trips were for the purpose of improving the quality of the work of individual salesmen and bringing up to date accounts of agents who had a backlog of uncollected premiums. The District Judge found that such work on the part of the supervisors was not exempt. The commissions earned by a supervisor were not limited to the specific sales made while the supervisor was actually accompanying a particular salesman. Rather, the quarterly or semi-annual commission received by each supervisor was computed upon the increase in business of all of the agents under his direction, regardless of whether the supervisor directly participated in the collections and sales. In addition, the District Judge found that the supervisors spent more than twenty percent of their work week in routine office work not connected with their own outside sales. This factor, in itself, would be sufficient to render the exemption inapplicable. 29 C.F.R. § 541.5(b).
The burden of proving that an employee is exempt from coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act rests upon the one who claims the exemption. Fletcher v. Grinnell Bros., 150 F.2d 337, 340-341 (C.A.6, 1945); Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U.S. 545, 548, 67 S.Ct. 883, 91 L.Ed. 1088. On the record presented here, we cannot say that the District Judge erred in holding that the defendant failed to sustain this burden. Nor do we find the factual determinations made by him, or his conclusions based thereon, to be clearly erroneous. The principal authority relied upon by defendant here, Jewel Tea Co. v. Williams, 118 F.2d 202 (C.A.10, 1941), is factually inapposite.
The judgment of the District Court is 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: 1