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:
Richard SYLVIA, Defendant, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 6021.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Jan. 22, 1963.
Manuel Katz, Boston, Mass., with whom Paul T. Smith and Raymond J. Dowd, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellant.
William J. Koen, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U. S. Atty., was on brief, for appellee.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
ALDRICH, Circuit Judge.
Sylvia was found guilty by a jury of violating 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) and 21 U. S.C. § 174 in connection with the sale of a small quantity of heroin. He appeals, not on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, but because the court placed upon him the burden of proving the defense of entrapment.
The government’s evidence warranted a finding that Sylvia was approached by one Gibson, a government agent, and asked if he knew where a certain individual, Chandler, could be found. Sylvia stated that he did not know, but asked if he could help him. Gibson replied that he was interested in a “$5 bag.” Sylvia replied that he could help him, and upon receipt of $5, produced a small paper bag from his pocket and gave it to Gibson. A conversation ensued indicating that Sylvia knew the contents to be heroin, which, in fact, it proved to be. A similar transaction was repeated the following day. On this evidence, of course, a conviction was warranted and there was no issue of entrapment. See Masciale v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 386, 388, 78 S.Ct. 827, 2 L.Ed.2d 859; Sandoval v. United States, 10 Cir., 1960, 285 F.2d 605.
In his defense Sylvia took the stand and testified that he met Gibson in a cafe; that Gibson asked him to go to a street corner and meet a man with a goatee and pick up two packages; that he did so; that Gibson reimbursed him for what he paid for the packages and that he delivered the packages to Gibson; that he did this as a favor to Gibson and without knowledge of what was in them. This testimony, he asserts, warrants a finding of entrapment. We hold it did not, at least in view of the other instructions given to the jury, to the effect that if the government had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Sylvia knew there was heroin in the packages he did not have “possession” and could not be convicted. The defendant’s testimony was to a single, indivisible episode, and was either to be accepted or rejected in its entirety. The jury’s verdict of guilty necessarily indicated its rejection. There was no basis left, in other words, for a finding of entrapment. This case falls under the settled principle that a defendant’s testimony to the effect that he did not commit the crime cannot raise an issue of entrapment. United States v. Di Donna, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 956; Rodriguez v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 227 F.2d 912; Eastman v. United States, 9 Cir., 1954, 212 F.2d 320.
The court should not have charged on entrapment at all. Even if, which we need not determine, the charge was legally inaccurate as well, we cannot see that the defendant was harmed. It cannot be prejudicial to permit him an extra defense. Cf. Samson v. United States, 1 Cir., 1928, 26 F.2d 769.
Judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court.
. While a jury normally may accept a witness’ testimony in part and reject it in part, there comes a point where “fragmentation” becomes illogical. Beradi v. Menicks, 1960, 340 Mass. 396, 400, 164 N.E.2d 544; see Hannon v. Hayes-Bickford Lunch System, Inc., 1957, 336 Mass. 268, 273, 145 N.E.2d. 191. We think this is such a case. If Sylvia’s testimony about not knowing what was in the packages is not credited, his whole story of deception amounting to entrapment collapses.

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