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:
BUCKNER v. HUDSPETH, Warden.
No. 1711.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
June 20, 1939.
John B. Dudley, Jr., of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., and Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
Walker B. Buckner, hereinafter called petitioner, was charged by an indictment returned in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana with passing, uttering, and publishing a forged, counterfeited, and altered obligation of the United States. He entered a plea of guilty thereto and was sentenced to serve a year and a day in the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Ga., and pay a fine of $115. The term of imprisonment was to commence on March 22, 1933, the date the sentence was imposed.
An indictment against petitioner containing four counts was returned in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia. The first count charged that petitioner, with intent to defraud the United States and for the purpose of obtaining money from the Treasurer of the United States, did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit a certain writing purporting to be signed by one A. Gyall and payable to R. G. Taylor and that such writing purported to be a check drawn on the Treasurer of the United States for the payroll of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. The second count charged that petitioner with-intent to defraud the United States did utter and publish the writing described in the first count as a true and genuine obligation of the United States. The third count charged that petitioner, with intent to defraud the United States and for the purpose of obtaining money from the Treasurer of the United States, did make, forge, and counterfeit a certain writing purporting to be signed by one A. Gyall and payable to R. G. Taylor and that such writing purported to be a check drawn on the Treasurer of the United States for the payroll of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. The fourth count charged that petitioner with intent to defraud the United States did utter and publish the writing described in the third count as a true and genuine obligation of the United States.
Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the indictment and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years and to pay a fine of $1000, the sentence of imprisonment to commence on the date petitioner was committed to jail or other place of detention to await transportation to the penitentiary.
He was committed to the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Ga. While there incarcerated he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern. District of Georgia. A judgment denying the writ was affirmed on appeal. See Buckner v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 255, 256. In that case, the petition challenged the sufficiency of the indictment returned in the Georgia District on the ground Gyall was not authorized to sign the checks and they were not obligations of the United States.
Thereafter, petitioner was transferred to the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. While there confined he filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. This is an appeal from a j udgment denying the writ.
In his petition he challenged the sufficiency of the indictment in both cases. The sentence under the first indictment having been fully served, the question as to the sufficiency of that indictment is moot.
Petitioner asserts that Gyall was not authorized to sign the checks described in the several counts of the indictment returned in the Georgia District, that such fact refutes an intent to defraud the United States, and that the checks were not obligations of the United States, and, therefore, counts one and three fail to charge offenses under 18 U.S.C.A. § 262, and counts two and four fail to charge offenses under 18 U.S.C.A. § 265.
18 U.S.C.A. § 261 in part reads as follows :
“The words 'obligation or other security of the United States’ shall be held to mean * * * checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States.” (Italics ours.)
The checks involved in the several counts of the indictment purported to be drawn upon the Treasurer of the United States and were, therefore, drawn upon an authorized officer of the United States and constituted an obligation of the United States.
The contention that there was no intent to defraud the United States, because the person whose name purported to be signed to the check was a fictitious person and was not authorized to draw the checks is foreclosed by the averments of the indictment and petitioner’s plea of guilty thereto. See Buckner v. Aderhold, supra. Furthermore, to constitute forgery the name alleged to be forged need not be that of any person in existence. It may be wholly fictitious if the instrument is made with intent to defraud and shows on its face that it has sufficient efficacy to enable it to be used to the injury of another.
Moreover, counts one and three of the indictment sufficiently charged an offense under 18 U.S.C.A. § 73 and the sentence was within the penalty provided for a violation of that section. See Buckner v. Aderhold, supra; Prussian v. United States, 282 U.S. 675, 679, 680, 51 S.Ct. 223, 75 L.Ed. 610; Moshcik v. United States, 5 Cir., 63 F.2d 533.
Petitioner asserts that the indictment was predicated on 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 262 and 265, and that the sentence was imposed under those sections, whereas the indictment charged an offense under 18 US.C.A. § 73. He predicates this on the endorsement affixed to the indictment and the clerk’s marginal notes on the sentence. The endorsement on the indictment is no part of the indictment and neither adds to nor weakens the legal force of its averments. If the indictment charged an offense under Section 73, supra, it. is sufficient, although the United States Attorney in drawing the indictment may have intended to charge an offense under Sections 262 and 265, supra. Williams v. United States, 168 U.S. 382, 389, 18 S.Ct. 92, 42 L.Ed. 509.
The sentence proper makes no reference to the penal sections under which it was imposed. The references to Sections 262 and 265, supra, are set forth in a marginal note, presumably written by the clerk of the court. They are no part of the sentence.
Moreover, we hold that the indictment sufficiently charged offenses under Sections 262 and 265, supra.
It follows that the sentence imposed was valid. The judgment is affirmed.
In passing on the sufficiency of the indictment the court said:
“Appellant relies upon the decision in Prussian v. U. S., 282 U.S. 675, 51 S.Ct. 223, 75 L.Ed. 610, to support his contention that the indictment does not charge an offense. In the Prussian Case it was held that forging an indorsement on a government draft was not forging an obligation of the United States, but the conviction was sustained on the ground that the fotging of the endorsement was the forging of a writing and an offense under section 29 Criminal Code (title 18 U.S.C.A. § 73). We so held in Mosheik v. U. S., [5 Cir.] 63 F.2d 533, in respect of the forgery of an indorsement on a registered Liberty Loan bond. Furthermore, forgery of the entire check is charged, not merely of the indorsement, and it is specifically charged as the forgery of a writing. The indictment does not purport to be drawn under any particular statute. If it did, that would be immaterial, if the facts alleged showed the violation' of any other statute. Williams v. United States, 168 U.S. 382, 18 S.Ct. 92, 42 L.Ed. 509. The indictment is sufficient to charge a violation of section 29, Criminal Code (18 U.S.C.A. § 73).
“Section 29 Criminal Code imposes a maximum penalty of a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment of not more than 10 years for forging a writing for the purpose of obtaining or receiving from the United States or any of its officers or agents any sum of money or for uttering or publishing such false writing as true. A general sentence of a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for the term of ten years was imposed on the indictment. The record leaves no doubt that the sentence is valid.
“It is contended by appellant that the .checks were identified by Symbol 85-234 and that Gyall was not authorized to sign the checks under that symbol but Glenn W. Moore was and therefore, in issuing checks improperly signed, he was not guilty of intent to defraud the United States. * * * It is sufficient to say that the writ of habeas corpus may not take the place of a writ of error. It is now too late to show that the person held out as signing the checks was not authorized to do so. That question was foreclosed by appellant’s plea of guilty.”
Meldrum v. United States, 9 Cir., 151 F. 177, 181;
Logan v. United States, 6 Cir., 123 E. 291;
United States v. Turner, 7 Pet. 132, 136, 137, 8 L.Ed. 633;
Ex parte Hibbs, D.C., 26 F. 421, 434.

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