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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oliver WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 80-5149.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 19, 1980.
Decided Jan. 22, 1981.
Charles S. Brown, Detroit, Mich, (court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
James K. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Harold Z. Gurewitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BROWN, KENNEDY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Charles Oliver Wilson appeals his conviction of eleven counts of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1341, and seven counts of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1001. Appellant was the principal operator and president of C. Wilson Laboratory Associates, Inc., which provided testing service for Detroit area doctors. It also referred, pursuant to an agreement, testing requests for those patients insured under the federally funded medicaid program to Advance Laboratory of Dearborn, Michigan. For each referred request, Advance paid the Wilson Laboratory amounts up to $28.00.
During the time period relevant to the indictment, the Michigan medicaid program paid laboratories which performed eligible testing services by means of Michigan Treasurer’s Warrants which were mailed to the laboratories. It was established at trial that the Wilson Laboratory personnel, at appellant’s direction, created fictitious test requests. On a daily basis, they referred to Advance Laboratory test requests when no tests had been ordered by the physician, or requests for more comprehensive testing than that ordered. Advance copied the information from the requisition forms onto the billing forms which it submitted to the state, which in turn mailed payments to Advance.
Appellant contends that the mailings by the state agency were not sufficiently related to his scheme of supplying Advance with fraudulent claims information to sustain a conviction under the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341. He seeks support from United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 94 S.Ct. 645, 38 L.Ed.2d 603 (1974). That case involved the § 1341 conviction of a man who obtained goods and services from motels by using a stolen credit card. The Supreme Court held that the mailings of the invoices by the motel operators to the bank which issued the credit card were insufficiently related to the defendant’s scheme to bring his conduct within the statute. The Court observed that “Respondent’s scheme reached fruition when he checked out of the motel, and there is no indication that the success of his scheme depended in any way upon which of his victims [the motel operator, the bank, or the credit card holder] ultimately bore the loss.” 414 U.S. at 402, 94 S.Ct. at 649 (footnote omitted).
We agree with the government’s argument that Maze is distinguishable. Appellant’s scheme to defraud had not come to fruition prior to the mailings of the payments to Advance. The mailings were an integral part of an ongoing scheme, and essential to its success. See United States v. Street, 529 F.2d 226 (6th Cir. 1976); United States v. Huber, 603 F.2d 387, 400 (2nd Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 927, 100 S.Ct. 1312, 63 L.Ed.2d 759 (1980). That the Advance employees charged in connection with the scheme have been acquitted is irrelevant.
Appellant’s second contention challenges his conviction of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001. He asserts that there was insufficient proof that the false requisition forms related to a “matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.” Appellant is raising this issue for the first time on appeal. The trial judge took judicial notice of this element of the offense, and instructed the jury accordingly. Having failed to object to this aspect of the charge at trial, appellant is precluded by Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure from arguing on appeal that it was error.
The judgment of the District Court, 490 F.Supp. 713, is affirmed.
. The applicable parts of the mail fraud statute provide as follows:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises ... for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do ... knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any [matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service] shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
A person “causes” the mails to be used when he “does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended .... ” Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 362-363, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954). There is abundant evidence to support the conclusion that appellant “caused” the use of the mails by the state agency.
. Section 1001 provides:
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

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