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:
Hazel A. PARMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The NATIONAL CASH REGISTER COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 74-1131.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued June 10, 1974.
Decided Sept. 20, 1974.
Milton A. Hayman, Steubenville, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.
N. Victor Goodman, Columbus, Ohio, for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Topper, Alloway, Goodman, DeLeone & Duffey, Columbus, Ohio, on brief.
J. Mack Swigert, Cincinnati, Ohio, for National Cash Register Co.; Taft, Stet-tinius & Hollister, William K. Engeman, Lawrence J. Barty, Cincinnati, Ohio, Robert E. Signom, Dayton, Ohio, of counsel.
Donald G. Logsdon, Charleston, W. Va., for Local 1854, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Stanley M. Hostler, Hostler, Logsdon, Shinaber-ry & McHugh, Charleston, W. Va., on brief.
Before EDWARDS, McCREE and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
We consider an appeal from a judgment entered upon dismissal of plaintiff-appellant’s suit brought under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), and Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), against National Cash Register Company (NCR), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Local 1854, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Hazel Parmer alleged in her complaint that she was employed by NCR for more than three years until her discharge on August 19, 1969. During that period, she was a member in good standing of Local 1854. On that date, appellant was ordered to work in a lower job classification to fill in for absent employees whose production duties were deemed essential. She refused, claiming that only women were ordered to work temporarily in these lower job classifications, while men with less seniority were never requested to perform similar duties. She was then discharged, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, for insubordination. The Local processed her grievance to a step short of arbitration and carried it no further for want of merit. Appellant alleged that, because of her sex, she was discriminatorily harassed and ultimately discharged by the company in violation of her rights, and that the local and international unions, by failing to properly process her grievance, breached their duty of fair representation.
On appeal, Parmer presents five issues in which she claims error on the part of the district court. First, she contends that she proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the International and Local jointly violated their duty of fair representation in processing the grievance relating to her discharge and that the court erred in not so finding; second, that the preponderance of evidence affirmatively established, contrary to the court’s determination, that she was discharged for discrimination because of sex within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g); third, that the court should have held that the evidence clearly established that appellees had collectively violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; fourth, that the court erred in not granting her costs and attorney’s fees for pursuing her cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); and, fifth, that the court erred in not permitting all issues against all defendants, as stipulated by the parties, to be presented at the same time for its full consideration.
Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witness.” This means that a determination of fact will not be overturned unless “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed,” United States v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948); Ash v. Hobart Mfg. Co., 483 F.2d 289 (6th Cir. 1973), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, Nathan Const. Co. v. Fenestra, Inc., 409 F.2d 134, 137-138 (8th Cir. 1969), see Strickler v. Pfister Associated Growers, Inc., 319 F.2d 788, 790 (6th Cir. 1963). The trial court found that appellant failed to establish her case by a preponderance of the evidence. Although the evidence in this case would permit the inferences that appellant was discharged because of sex, and that the Local and International breached their duty of fair representation, we cannot conclude that the lower court was clearly erroneous in its findings. Also appellant’s fourth assignment is unavailing since, by virtue of the language of Section 2000e-5(k), costs and attorney’s fees are awarded only to the prevailing party.
The final assignment of error is that, since the claims against both the company and the unions, and the evidence relating to them, were so closely interrelated, failure to consider them at the same time was reversible error. The decision to sever issues is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and its determination should only be reversed for abuse of that discretion, Crummett v. Corbin, 475 F.2d 816, 817 (6th Cir. 1973). Here appellant has failed to show how she was prejudiced by any severance of the issues, and since she failed to object to the procedures of which she complains, we find no error in this respect.
Affirmed.
. There was a general practice of making temporary job assignments of this nature from appellant’s job classification, mechanical line inspector, which was an experimental classification that was being phased out in the ongoing collective bargaining negotiations.

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