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:
John DeCECCO, Defendant, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 6367.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Nov. 30, 1964.
Joseph Mainelli, Providence, R. I., for appellant.
Alton W. Wiley, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Raymond J. Pettine, U. S. Atty., was on brief, for appellee.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH. Circuit Judges.
ALDRICH, Circuit Judge.
This appeal raises only one substantial question. The defendant was convicted following a jury trial, on a two-count information charging the failure to pay the special occupational (wagering) tax in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 7203 and 7262. The record appendix shows that the defendant presented evidence in his defense, but none to the effect that he had paid the tax. The defendant requested the court to charge the jury that the “mere fact that the Government’s evidence is uncontradicted” did not require the jury to accept it. The court gave not this request, but just the reverse. It is true that at the outset it properly instructed the jury that the government had the burden of proving “every material element of * * * [the] offense.” However, it thereafter stated that it was “undisputed” that the defendant had not paid the tax. Then, as to one count inferentially and the other specifically, removed the issue of payment from this instruction.
“If the Government has satisfied you by the required degree of proof, that is, by proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant on and before March 7, 1963 was engaged in the business of accepting wagers, and that he wilfully failed to pay said tax before engaging in said business, then your verdict as to Count I shall be guilty.”
It seems fairly clear, not only because of the court’s failure to give the defendant’s request, and its reference to the fact of non-payment being undisputed, but also from what it said subsequently, that “wilfully failed to pay” was limited to defendant’s state of mind, and assumed the fact of non-payment. When the court came to the second count, where wilfullness was not involved, it laid the matter firmly on the line.
“As to Coünt II I instruct you -that if the Government has satisfied you by the required degree of proof that the defendant was engaged in the business of accepting wagers on and before March 7, 1963, then your verdict as to that count shall be guilty.
“That is the only element that the Government need prove because it is undisputed here that no wagering stamp was ever issued to the defendant or ever issued for the premises at'50 Pekin Street.”
The defendant duly noted his objection.
The objection must be sustained. No matter how persuasive the government’s evidence may seem to the court, there is no burden on a defendant to dispute it. Nor can defendant’s failure to offer evidence on one issue change or satisfy the government’s burden with respect to it. United States v. Gollin, 3 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 123, 125-127, cert. den. 333 U.S. 875, 68 S.Ct. 905, 92 L.Ed. 1151; Carothers v. United States, 5 Cir., 1947, 161 F.2d 718, 722. The court’s charge in this case, if correct, would mean that if a defendant rests at the close of the government’s case, the burden on all matters is on the government, but that if he offers evidence on some issues he admits any on which he does not. This would require a defendant to offer partial evidence at his peril. We could recognize no such principle. It may have seemed to the district court, and seems to us,.highly unlikely that the government’s case would founder on the issue of non-payment of the tax, but it was the defendant’s right to insist on its incurring that risk however small.
Judgment will be entered setting aside the verdicts of the jury and vacating the judgment thereon and ordering further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
. Our opinion in Calo v. United States, 1 Cir., 1964, 338 F.2d 793, adequately covers the defendant’s attack on the descriptions in the search warrant.

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