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. Jerry J. GUDGER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 72-2003.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 26, 1972.
J. V. Eskenazi, Federal Public Defender (Court appointed), Peter Koste, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Bruce E. Wagner, Robert C. Byrne, Asst. U. S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appel-lee.
Before RIVES, WISDOM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
RIVES, Circuit Judge:
The jury found the defendant guilty under a one-count indictment which charged that
“JERRY J. GUDGER
in connection with the acquisition of a firearm, to wit, one 30 caliber Plain-field M-l Carbine, bearing serial number 15932, from a licensed dealer, Dud’s Gun Shop, did knowingly make a false written statement, misrepresenting identification with respect to the transaction, by presenting a fictitious address, ‘4325 Collins, Miami Beach, Florida’ to. the dealer, said false written statement intended to deceive such dealer with respect to a material fact to the lawfulness of the sale, and disposition of such firearm, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(a)(6).” [Rec. p. 180]
The district court sentenced him to 57 days’ imprisonment. The sole issue on appeal is whether the court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Decision of that issue turns on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to a material fact to the lawfulness of the sale” as that phrase is used in the indictment.
The testimony revealed that the address “4325 Collins, Miami Beach, Florida,” was fictitious, but there was no evidence to refute the defendant’s claim of Florida residency. Under similar facts the District Court of New Hampshire granted a defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, reasoning as follows:
“The gravamen of the crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) is making or furnishing or exhibiting ‘any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such * * * dealer, * * * with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale. * * * ’ [Emphasis added.] I assume, for purposes of this ruling, that the defendant knew at the time that he showed his license to the gun dealer that the address given on his license was incorrect, although there was no direct evidence as to knowledge or intent. But the material fact for a dealer under § 922(b)(3) is the residency of the buyer, not the address of the buyer, although the address may be evidence of residency. The fact that a buyer may have intentionally given a false address does not become material until the government first proves that the defendant is not a resident of the state in which the dealer is doing business. There may be many reasons for giving a false address, none of which have anything to do with the commission of the crime set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6).”
United States v. Benton, D.N.H.1971, 329 F.Supp. 331, 332.
On the other hand, in United States v. Crandall, 1972, 453 F.2d 1216-1217 the First Circuit reasoned:
“In spite of able argument by defendant’s counsel we consider this appeal to be lacking in merit. Defendant’s motion for acquittal was denied, and thereafter he was found guilty of making a false statement, to wit, of supplying a false name, address, and date of birth in connection with his acquisition of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) * * *
“Defendant’s primary contention is that the misrepresentation was not one of a ‘fact material to the lawfulness of the sale,’ because, although the jury could find that defendant did misrepresent his identity, in actual fact, regardless of name, he was not a prohibited buyer within section 922, subsections (b) and (d). Hence, he says, the misrepresentation was not material. In making this contention defendant overlooks subsection (5) of section (b), which makes the sale unlawful, without limitation, in every case, unless the seller records the ‘name, age, and place of residence’ of the purchaser. It follows from the fact that the sale is illegal unless these matters are correctly recorded, that their misstatement is a misrepresentation of a ‘fact material to the lawfulness of the sale.’ ”
Insofar as we are advised or have discovered, Benton and Crandall are the only pertinent eases. In Crandall the defendant supplied “a false name, address, and date of birth,” while in the case at bar the indictment charged the defendant with “misrepresenting identification with respect to the transaction, by presenting a fictitious address, ‘4325 Collins, Miami Beach, Florida’ to the dealer.” To us that seems a distinction without a difference. We conclude that this case is governed by Crandall, and that the district court properly denied the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
Such a direct approach obviates the necessity of considering the following more indirect rationale: (1) Error in the citation of the statute in the indictment is not ground for reversal if the error did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice. Rule 7(c), F.R.Cr.P. See also Williams v. United States, 1897, 168 U.S. 382, 389, 18 S.Ct. 92, 42 L.Ed. 509; United States v. Hutcheson, 1941, 312 U.S; 219, 224, 61 S.Ct. 463, 85 L.Ed. 788. (2) The facts alleged in the indictment constitute an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(b) (5)
We think that the facts alleged in the, indictment and supported by the evidence constitute an offense under the statute cited, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), and that resort to other statutes or regulations is not necessary.
The judgment is therefore
Affirmed.
. Which provides for punishment for misrepresentation of any fact required to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter.
. Which provides:
“(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(5) any firearm or ammunition to any person unless the licensee notes in his records, required to be kept pursuant to section 923 of this chapter, the name, age, and place of residence of such person if the person is an individual, or the identity and principal and local places of business of such person if the person is a corporation or other business entity.”

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