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, Appellee, v. William F. MEESE, Appellant.
No. 72-1709.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 1973.
Decided May 31, 1973.
Ronald L. Rothman, Clayton, Mo., for appellant.
Ann T. Wallace, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MEHAFFY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
MEHAFFY, Circuit Judge.
Defendant was convicted of operating an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 which prohibits the operation of an illegal gambling business. It defines an illegal gambling business as a gambling business which (a) is a violation of state law; (b) involves five or more persons “who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of such business. . . . ”; and (c) has been in substantially continuous operation in excess of thirty days.
A jury was waived and the facts stipulated in the district court resulting in the conviction by The Honorable James H. Meredith, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
On appeal defendant challenges the constitutionality of the statute on its face and as applied to him. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. We affirm.
As stipulated the evidence showed that defendant owned a partnership interest in and operated a gambling business for a period in excess of thirty days involving fifty-four slot machines. He maintained a warehouse used for storing and repairing the machines and employed from six to nine individuals to operate the business. One of the employees, defendant’s wife, was the bookkeeper. Five other employees collected the funds from the machines at their various locations in different clubs. These five employees and another person employed for a period in excess of five months also repaired the machines at the clubs where they were located and at defendant’s warehouse. These employees transported the machines between the clubs and the warehouse when necessary. For a period of about three months an additional two employees were employed to act as change-makers at one of the clubs. Half of the salary of these two employees was paid by defendant.
Constitutionality of § 1955.
Defendant argues that the statute is unconstitutional on its face since no relationship between intrastate conduct and interstate commerce is required to be shown and that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him in that no showing that these particular gambling activities affected interstate commerce was made. This court has already held that “[c]onvictions under § 1955 do not require a showing in each individual case that the gambling activities of a particular defendant have affected commerce. . . . ” Schneider v. United States, 459 F.2d 540, 541 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 877, 93 S.Ct. 129, 34 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972). We further held in Schneider that there is a sufficient rational basis for Congress’ conclusion that illegal gambling-affects interstate commerce. 459 F.2d at 542. We adhere to our holding in Schneider which is in accord with United States v. Becker, 461 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1972), petition for cert. filed, 41 U.S.L.W. 3160 (U.S. July 28, 1972) (No. 72-158); United States v. Riehl, 460 F.2d 454 (3d Cir. 1972); United States v. Harris, 460 F.2d 1041 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 877, 93 S.Ct. 128, 34 L.Ed.2d 130 (1972); and United States v. Palmer, 465 F.2d 697 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 874, 93 S.Ct. 119, 34 L.Ed.2d 126 (1972). Thus, as we held in Schneider, the statute is a constitutional exercise of power under the commerce clause and is constitutional as applied to defendant.
Defendant argues that his gambling business was a small one and located within a single county in Missouri; hence, he argues, his illegal activities are not within the intended scope of the statute. In view of our finding that § 1955 is constitutional and since defendant is within the prohibited class, we do not consider the magnitude of the particular activity charged since we are without power “ ‘to excise as trivial, individual instances’ of the class.” Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 154, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 1361, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971).
Sufficiency vf the Evidence.
Defendant contends that he is the only person who conducted the business and that the other persons were mere employees; thus, he argues, the statutory requirement that five or more persons conduct the business was not met. We hold that all levels of personnel involved in operating an illegal gambling business and not merely the management level are to be included in determining whether five or more persons conduct such business within the meaning of § 1955. United States v. Becker, supra; United States v. Riehl, supra; United States v. Harris, supra; United States v. Palmer, supra.
Finally, defendant contends that the evidence does not show he violated Missouri law, 41 V.A.M.S. §§ 563.370, 563.-374 and 563.380, as charged in the indictment. We find this contention to be without merit.
We have considered other related contentions of defendant and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
. We also followed Schneider in United States v. Wolk, 466 F.2d 1143 (8th Cir. 1972).

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