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. William Frank TATE, Appellant.
No. 82-5169.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued May 13, 1983.
Decided Aug. 30, 1983.
Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, S.C., for appellant.
Douglas H. Westbrook, Asst. U.S. Atty., Greenville, S.C. (Henry Dargan McMaster, U.S. Atty., Columbia, S.C., on brief), for appellee.
Before WIDENER and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and MERHIGE, District Judge.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
WIDENER, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from a conviction for receipt of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1). On appeal, the defendant asserts that the court committed reversible error in admitting testimony that the defendant on a prior occasion had been seen in possession of a gun. We agree with the defendant, and vacate the conviction and remand for a new trial.
On or about June 13,1981, the defendant, while driving his wife’s car, was stopped by police who had a warrant to search the defendant’s home for drugs. The police searched the trunk of the car and discovered a .38 caliber pistol and a .32 caliber pistol. At trial, the defendant testified that he did not know that either gun was in the trunk. The defendant further testified that the .38 caliber pistol belonged to a passenger in the car and the .32 caliber pistol belonged to his wife. On rebuttal in the order of proof at the trial, the prosecution put on evidence that the defendant had been seen in possession of a pistol some time during the first part of 1981, before June of that year. That pistol was not, however, one of the guns found in the car when the defendant was stopped in June 1981, and the .32 found in the car and the subject of count 2 of the indictment was the same .32 the defendant was charged with receiving in count .1, also in June 1981.
Evidence of other crimes or wrongs is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the defendant possesses a criminal character or otherwise had the propensity to commit the crime with which he is charged. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Lovely v. United States, 169 F.2d 386 (4th Cir.1948), is our leading case. If offered for certain other purposes, however, such evidence is admissible if the risk of undue prejudice is outweighed by its probative value. See, e.g., United States v. Masters, 622 F.2d 83, 86-87 (4th Cir.1980) (evidence admissible as a part of a complete conversation showing the context of the crime and the setting of the case); United States v. Sparks, 560 F.2d 1173, 1175 (4th Cir.1977) (evidence admissible to prove knowledge and intent); United States v. DiZenzo, 500 F.2d 263, 265 (4th Cir.1974) (evidence admissible to prove knowledge and intent); United States v. Samuel, 431 F.2d 610, 612 (4th Cir.1970), cert, denied, 401 U.S. 946, 91 S.Ct. 964, 28 L.Ed.2d 229 (1971) (evidence admissible to prove knowledge).
The government argues that the evidence at issue was admissible to show guilty knowledge on the part of the defendant. This argument, however, must be rejected. The possession by the defendant of a different gun on a previous occasion has no relevance to the issue of whether the defendant knew on the day he was stopped that the two pistols were in the trunk of his wife’s car, or that he knew that the chattel he received and was charged with in count 1 was a pistol. But the commission of the same bad act on a previous occasion is bound to have had the effect of tending to show that the defendant had the propensity to commit the crimes for which he was on trial.
We therefore conclude that it was error to admit the evidence. Moreover, because it cannot be said with fair assurance that the verdict “was not substantially swayed by the error, Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), we must vacate the defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
. The defendant as a convicted felon was indicted in count 1 for receiving the .32 caliber pistol, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1), and for possession of both the .32 and a .38 caliber pistol, under 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(a)(1). The jury found the defendant not guilty of possession of the .38, and the court set aside a verdict of guilty of possession of the .32 from which the government does not appeal, so the defendant stands convicted only of the receiving charge.
No issue is made of the search of the trunk of the car to which Tate apparently consented.
. The evidence was not offered to impeach the defendant who had testified that he had never possessed a gun; rather, the district court took the position that there was no issue of knowledge unless the defendant claimed an innocent explanation of the presence of the guns in the trunk of the car. Consistent with United States v. Ling, 581 F.2d 1118 (4th Cir.1978), no issue is made that the evidence was admissible for impeachment purposes.

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