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:
CROW v. DUMKE.
No. 2869.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
May 13, 1944.
Benjamin C. Hilliard, Jr., of Denver, Colo. (George H. Blickhahn, of Walsenburg, Colo., on the brief), for appellant.
Byron G. Rogers, of Denver, Colo., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges and RICE, District Judge.
HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.
John H. Reniger instituted this action against Clyde Winslow, Florence P. Anderson and J. M. Crow, each individually, and also against them as a co-partnership doing business under the name of Anderson Exploration Company, and against the Anderson Exploration Company, a corporation, to recover on a lease of an oil drilling rig. Judgment was rendered against them individually and also as a co-partnership, and against the Anderson Exploration Company, a corporation. J. M. Crow alone has appealed. After judgment was entered, Frederick William Dumke, administrator of the estate of John H. Reniger, was substituted as party plaintiff.
The grounds relied upon for reversal are: (1) That the evidence is insufficient to sustain the finding that appellant was liable as a partner, and (2) that the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
Appellant, Florence P. Anderson and Clyde Winslow entered into written articles of partnership under the name and style of the Anderson Exploration Company, about May 1, 1942. The object of the partnership was the procurement of oil and gas leases to a large acreage of land, with the ultimate object of drilling and exploring the acreage for oil and gas. A large acreage was assembled by the partnership.
The agreement on which this action was based was executed between Clyde Win-slow and Ruth C. Brazil October 1, 1942. The agreement was drawn on stationery which was headed:
“Anderson Exploration Company
(To Be Organized)
“Clyde Winslow,
“Syndicate Manager.”
It made no reference to the partnership. In the agreement Winslow leased a drilling rig and outfit from Mrs. Brazil for which he agreed to pay her $25 per day for the length of time he had possession of the rig. She assigned her interest in the contract to John H. Reniger, who instituted this action to recover the amount due under the contract.
Appellant’s defense to the action was that the sole object of the partnership was the procurement of the leases and that the partnership was terminated about July 15, 1942; that appellant did not represent himself to be a partner nor give his consent that anyone else should so represent him, and that Mrs. Brazil had no knowledge of the partnership and did not execute the agreement in the belief that she was dealing with the partnership.
Winslow and appellant both testified that the sole function of the partnership was assembling the block of leases and that the partnership agreement provided that when the acreage was assembled the partnership should be dissolved, a corporation would be organized for the purpose of developing the acreage, and that the leases would then be assigned to the corporation. They further testified that the partnership was dissolved about July IS, 1942, and that the copies' of the partnership agreement were all delivered to Crow. Mrs. Anderson, the third member of the partnership, was not called and did not testify.
Mrs. Brazil testified that Winslow told her that he was executing the agreement on behalf of the co-partnership consisting of himself, Crow and Mrs. Anderson. Winslow denied this and testified that he told her he was executing the agreement on behalf of the corporation to be formed. What Winslow told Mrs. Brazil is, of course, incompetent to establish the existence of the partnership. It would be competent only to show the understanding of the parties to the agreement.
While Crow and Winslow both testified that the partnership terminated about July IS, 1942, there is evidence from which a contrary conclusion could be inferred. There is evidence that leases were being taken as late as August, 1942. It is admitted that this was the purpose for which the partnership was formed. There is no testimony that these later leases were taken in a manner other than those which were taken during May, June, and the first part of July. H. M. Brazil testified that he met Crow and Winslow at the Victoria Hotel July 31, 1942; that they discussed the entire proposition, and that they told him that they had a co-partnership consisting of themselves and Mrs. Anderson, and that Winslow was the manager. Frank A. Webber testified that he showed the contract between Winslow and Mrs. Brazil to Crow in November 1942, together with a power of attorney he held from her for the purpose of collecting what was due on the contract. Crow told him then that he knew of the contract and that no payments had been made thereon, and that as soon as funds were available he would see that it was paid. The rig was moved to land owned by Crow. He helped in moving the rig by tearing down the fence, filling up the irrigation ditches, and made other arrangements for moving the rig on to the premises. All of this was at a time subsequent to the time when he and' Winslow claimed the partnership had been dissolved. At a pre-trial conference in the-court’s chambers, Crow agreed to produce a copy of the articles of partnership, but later excused compliance on the ground that his wife evidently had destroyed all' copies of the contract. There is evidence that as late as October 3, Crow instructed his attorney to keep possession of the leases; and refuse to deliver them to the corporation. It is admitted that Crow was active-in procuring the leases and that he made representations to his neighbors that a test would be made for oil and gas. The corporation was not formed until after the contract between Winslow and Mrs. Brazil had been executed. While the evidence as to-the terms of the partnership and the date of the termination thereof was conflicting, it is our conclusion that it warrants the finding of the trial court that the co-partnership was not dissolved prior to the execution of the contract with Mrs. Brazil, and that the contract was made by and for the co-partnership.
It is urged that the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.. This evidence consists of a letter written by Mrs. Brazil to Winslow under date of November 19, 1943. The letter was written in response to a telegram from Winslow. In it, she states that: “Not being a stockholder in your company I am not familiar with the business of your Board of Directors. * * * I entered into an agreement with you upon your representation that your company was organized and financed and had a permit to operate in the state of Colorado. * * *” It is urged, with considerable force, that this contradicts-her statements that all she knew was the partnership. We cannot say, however, as a matter of law, that this letter would compel a judgment for appellant. The trial was to the court. Had the trial court felt that the letter would result in his changing his findings of fact, he would no doubt have granted the motion for a new trial.
Furthermore, before a new trial may be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the motion therefor must show that the evidence has been discovered since the trial, it must show facts from which the court may infer reasonable diligence on the part of the movant—in other words, it must show some reason why the evidence was not produced at the first trial—and it must show that the evidence is not merely cumulative, that it is material and is of such a nature that a new trial would probably produce a different result. Prisament v. United States, 5 Cir., 96 F.2d 865; Marshall’s U. S. Auto Supply v. Cashman, 10 Cir., 111 F.2d 140. The motion for a new trial is devoid of any showing of diligence. No attempt was made to explain why the letter was not produced at the first trial. It was written to and was in the possession of Winslow, one of the members of the partnership and a defendant in the action. Winslow was a witness at the trial. He was apparently friendly to appellant and cooperated with him throughout the trial. He denied Mrs. Brazil’s testimony that he told her that he was executing the contract for the partnership. During all this time he was in possession of this letter which tended to contradict her statements. Under all these circumstances we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.
Affirmed.

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: 1