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:
FAIRMONT FOODS COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 12680.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 10, 1969.
Decided Feb. 28, 1969.
Carl D. Hall, Tulsa, Okl. (John M. Keefer, and Hall & Sublett, Tulsa, Okl., on brief) for petitioner.
Seth D. Rosen, Atty., N. L. R. B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Paul J. Spielberg, Atty., N. L. R. B., on brief) for respondent.
Before BOREMAN, WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case is before the court upon petition of Fairmont Foods, Inc., (Fairmont) pursuant to section 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, (61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) to review and set aside the order of the National Labor Relations Board issued against UtoteM of Oklahoma (the company), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fairmont. This court has jurisdiction under section 10(e) and (f) of the Act since Fairmont does business within this judicial circuit.
The Board found that the company violated section 8(a) (1) of the Act by, inter alia, coercive interrogation of employees as to union activities: threatening employees with loss of jobs if they selected a union; and proposing an independent contractor arrangement in an effort to prevent union organization. We find substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s findings of section 8(a) (1) violations. In fact, before us, the company concedes the correctness of these findings.
The Board found that the company violated section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging Jerry Dennis and Steven Fryar for their union activities. The company sought to justify the discharges because of a substantial shortage in inventory at a company store where Dennis and Fryar were the only employees. We have examined the record and reach the conclusion that the Board’s findings of discriminatory discharges are supported by substantial evidence and that the order of reinstatement of these two employees should be enforced.
Next, the Board found that the company violated section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act, first, by refusing to bargain with the union which represented a majority of its employees in an appropriate unit and, second, by taking unilateral action affecting wages and other terms and conditions of employment when the company was under a duty to bargain with the union.
This case is another in a series of cases arising in this circuit in which the Board order to bargain is based upon “authorization cards” signed by employees and not by reason of certification of the union as bargaining agent after a secret ballot election. Consistently, in several cases we have disapproved the Board’s orders to bargain based upon authorization cards.
We are aware that on December 16, 1968, (393 U.S. 997, 89 S.Ct. 482, 21 L.Ed.2d 462) the Supreme Court granted review of this court’s decision in N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc. (398 F.2d 336). Counsel for the Board has requested that we defer further argument and final decision on the section 8(a) (5) portions of the instant case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Gissel. The request is granted. However, the Board’s order in other respects will be enforced.
Enforcement granted in part and consideration of other portions of Board’s order deferred.
. The Board’s decision, and order are reported at 172 NLRB No. 21.
. General Steel Products, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 398 F.2d 339 (4 Cir. 1968) ; N. L. R. B. v. Heck’s, Inc., 398 F.2d 337 (4 Cir. 1968) ; N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 398 F.2d 336 (4 Cir. 1968) ; N. L. R. B. v. S. S. Logan Packing Company, 386 F.2d 562 (4 Cir. 1967) ; Crawford Manufacturing Co. v. N. L. R. B., 386 F.2d 367 (4 Cir. 1967).

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