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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
Richard Andrew ALLISON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 8042.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
June 28, 1965.
Peter J. Mulvaney, Cheyenne, Wyo., for appellant.
Guy L. Goodwin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., District of Kansas, on the brief), for appellee.
Before PICKETT, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.
BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.
A jury found appellant guilty of the interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. He appeals from the judgment sentencing him to a term of three years and contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.
The charge against appellant relates to a 1962 Chevrolet which was stolen in Springfield, Missouri, during the night of July 11, 1964. A car of similar appearance was seen by a farmer parked in a field near Elk City, Kansas, in the early morning of July 13. Two men were in the car. The farmer identified the one sitting in the right-hand front seat as the appellant. On the evening of the same day the farmer saw the car in the same location but with no person in it who was visible. When he circled the car to approach it, the car was driven away. It was found abandoned the next morning near Elk City. The car v/as subsequently identified as the Chevrolet which had been stolen in Springfield. A fingerprint lifted from the wing window of the right front door of the car was identified as the print of the right index finger of the defendant. On the afternoon of the 13th a car was stolen in Elk City and found the next day in Paw-huska, Oklahoma. The appellant and another were arrested several blocks from the place where that car was found. In the pocket of one of them — the record does not disclose which one — was a jumper cable. The defense offered no evidence.
To convict under § 2312 the government must prove that the vehicle was stolen, that it was transported in interstate commerce, and that such transportation was with knowledge that the vehicle was stolen. Proof that an accused is in possession of a vehicle recently stolen in another state sustains the inferences that he knew the vehicle was stolen and that he transported it in interstate commerce. The basis of the inferences is the possession of the vehicle. Absent possession no inference may be drawn. As used in this context the term possession means actual control, dominion, or authority.
The proof of possession is that appellant was seen sitting in the right-hand front seat — not the driver’s seat— while the car was standing still and that the print of one of his fingers was found on the wing window of the right front door. Fingerprints on a stolen car were held insufficient to convict of a violation of § 2312 in Camilla v. United States, 6 Cir., 207 F.2d 339, 340. Testimony that appellant was sitting as a passenger in the stationary car adds nothing of significance. Neither the fingerprint nor the presence in the car shows control, dominion, or authority over the car. In Glover v. United States, 10 Cir., 306 F.2d 594, 595, we said that evidence which •creates a mere suspicion of guilt will not sustain a conviction. Here the evidence may create a suspicion of possession but that is not enough to warrant a finding of possession from which the inferences of required knowledge and interstate transportation may be drawn.
After viewing the entire evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we conclude that it was not sufficient to support the verdict.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss.
. Fitts v. United States, 10 Cir., 284 F.2d 108, 110-111. See also Grandsinger v. United States, 10 Cir., 332 F.2d 80, 82, and Fitts v. United States, 10 Cir., 328 F.2d 844, 846, certiorari denied 379 U.S. 851, 85 S.Ct. 96, 13 L.Ed.2d 55.
. See Pearson v. United States, 6 Cir., 192 F.2d 681, 692-693, and authorities assembled in concurring opinion in Barfield v. United States, 5 Cir., 229 F.2d 936, 942-943.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0