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:
SHIGERU FUJII v. UNITED STATES.
No. 2973.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
March 12, 1945.
Writ of Certiorari Denied May 28, 1945.
See 65 S.Ct. 1406.
Samuel D. Menin, of Denver, Colo. (Clyde M. Watts, of Cheyenne, Wyo., on the brief), for appellant.
■Carl L. Sackett, U. S. Atty., of Cheyenne, Wyo. (John C. Pickett, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Cheyenne, Wyo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRATTON, HUXMAN, and MURRAII, Circuit Judges.
HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.
Shigeru Fujii, the appellant herein, was indicted, tried, and convicted tinder 50 U.S. C.A. Appendix § 311, for wilfully refusing and failing to report for induction into the armed forces of the United States pursuant to an order of his local draft board. He is one of 63 persons convicted under similar circumstances. By stipulation of counsel, it is agreed that the other cases shall be controlled by the decision in this case.
Appellant is an American citizen. He was born in the United States of Japanese ancestry. He registered with his local draft board in California. Thereafter, in 1942, he was removed to and confined in a relocation center at Heart Mountain Park, Wyoming. At first he was classified in IV-C. Prior to the order to report, he was reclassified into 1-A. He was still confined in the relocation center when he was ordered to report for induction.
Appellant was loyal to the United States at all times. There can be no question about this. The agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation who investigated him after he failed to report testified that his attitude was that of being loyal to the United States; that he indicated no desire to live in Japan, and that he desired to fight for this country if he were restored to his rights as a citizen.
Appellant’s entire appeal is predicated on the argument that his removal from his home and his confinement behind barbed wire in the relocation center without being charged' with any crime deprived him of his liberty and property without due process of law, and that therefore he ought not to be required to render military service until his rights were restored.
Under the admitted facts as to his loyalty, he was restrained of his liberty by confinement in the relocation center. ile could have secured his complete release from restraint by writ of habeas corpus at any time and could thus have been restored to freedom. This would have given him the vindication which he seeks. It would have cleared his name for all time. But this he did not do. Instead, he chose to disobey a lawful order because he claimed his rights had been invaded. Two wrongs never make a right. One may not refuse to heed a lawful call of his government merely because in another way it may have injured him. Appellant was a citizen of the United States. Tie owed the same military service to his country that any other citizen did. Neither the fact that he was of Japanese ancestry nor the fact that his constitutional rights may have been invaded by sending him to a relocation center cancel this debt.
Furthermore, the courts are not open to him to challenge his right to exemption from military service under the admitted facts. , It is now well settled that one must exhaust his administrative remedies and must obey the order to report before he may use the courts to challenge his classification. This was definitely settled by the Supreme Court in Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 305. Appellant concedes this, but argues that the decision in the Falbo case is wrong. In effect, he asks us to overrule the Supreme Court. No reason, to say nothing of. a cogent one, is given for this extraordinary request. Appellant also urges that this case is controlled by the decision in United States v. Kuwabara, D.C., 56 F.Supp. 716. We do not pass upon the soundness of that decision. It is sufficient to say that it is distinguishable upon the facts.
The Selective Service Act makes it a penal offense to refuse to report for induction. It was appellant’s duty to report for induction and thereafter assert any claimed rights for exemption from military service by writ of habeas corpus. This he failed to do. Instead, he chose to ignore the order. As a result, he became subject to the penal provisions of the statute.
Under the stipulation of the parties, this -decision is made applicable to the other -.sixty-two cases covered therein.
Affirmed.
Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 1944, 323 U. S. 283, 65 S.Ct. 208.

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