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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHICAGO EXPRESS, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11564.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Aug. 22, 1956.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 1956.
Paul W. Lashly, St. Louis, Mo., Lashly & Neun, Hiram W. Watkins, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
C. M. Raemer, U. S. Atty., Edward G. Maag, Asst. U. S. Atty., East St. Louis, 111., for appellee.
Before MAJOR, FINNEGAN and SWAIM, Circuit Judges.
FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.
An inspector of the Interstate Commerce Commission halted defendant’s tractor, moving along Illinois Route 3, after that vehicle had been loaded with 33,210 pounds of paranitroanaline at the Monsanto Chemical Company’s plant. After identifying himself to defendant’s driver, that inspector asked for, and examined, the bill of lading, now government exhibit 1, covering the cargo then being hauled by Chicago Express, Inc., the defendant-common carrier. Exhibit 1, bearing defendant’s driver’s signature, is plainly and clearly stamped: “Class 'B' Poison Label Applied”. While making his roadside inspection of the tractor, but not its contents, the inspector observed that it did not carry two red rear reflectors required by I. C. C. regulations, nor was it placarded pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 77.823 showing transportation of a dangerous commodity. This visual examination resulted in the filing of a four-count criminal information against 'Chicago Express, Inc., on which a jury returned a verdict of guilty under the first two counts and not guilty on the others. Defendant, fined $500 on the first count, and $100 on the second, has appealed its conviction.
The critical counts are bottomed on regulations promulgated by the Interstate Commerce Commission, which has undisputed authority for such purpose, flowing from 18 U.S.C. § 835, containing inter alia, this salient sentence:
“Whoever knowingly violates any such regulation shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both * * * ” (italicization added.)
By using the word “knowingly” in § 835, we think Congress, while describing a state of mind essential for responsibility, removed violations of the relevant regulations from the classifi■cation familiarly known as offenses ma-lum prohibitum, public welfare, and civil offenses. Indeed, Mr. Justice Clark ds-livering the majority opinion in Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 1952, 342 U.S. 337, 342, 72 S.Ct. 329, 331, 96 L. Ed. 367, involving 49 C.F.R. § 197.1(b) explained the impact of § 835 in this fashion:
“The statute punishes only those who knowingly violate the Regulation. This requirement of the presence of culpable intent as a necessary element of the offense does much to destroy any force in the argument that application of the Regulation would be so unfair that it must be held invalid. That is evident from a consideration of the requirement in this case. To sustain a conviction, the Government not only must prove that petitioner could have taken another route which was both commercially practicable and appreciably safer * * * than the one it did follow. It must also be shown that petitioner knew that there was such a practicable, safer route and yet deliberately took the more dan*f'ous J°ute through the tunnel or that Petitioner wilfully neglected to exercisers duty under the Regulatian ^ inqui11'e mt° the availability of such an alternative route.
Relying on virtually the same aspect of the Boyce opinion the First Circuit reversed a conviction for violating the identical regulation, now before us, in St. Johnsbury Trucking Company v. United States, 1 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 393. A reversal of the judgment appealed is inevitable here in light of both cases just mentioned because of the failure to correctly instruct the jury on the mental element required by, and for accountability under, § 835.
We think, therefore, it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse to give the following instruction requested by defendant: “The Court instructs the jury that before the defendant can be found guilty, the jury must believe from the evidence that defendant had a specific wrongful intent to violate the regulations of the Interstate Commerce [Commission].” Our disposition of this appeal removes any need for treating other points raised by the parties.
The district court’s judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
. Only the first two counts, relevant here, need be reprinted:
“The United States Attorney charged:
“Count 1.
“On or about the 1st day of October, 1952, in the Eastern District of Illinois, Chicago Express, Inc., defendant, a corporation, a common carrier by motor ve-hide and, as such carrier, subject to the regulations prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission applying to ship-nnents of explosives and other dangerous .articles made by way of common, contract and private carriers by public highway (49 C.F.R. 71 to 78) did knowingly transport by motor vehicle more than 2500 pounds of a dangerous poison, to wit, para nitroaniline solid, a Class B poisonous solid, from Monsanto, Illinois, without there being marked or placarded on each side and rear of said motor vehicle while enroute to Bound Brook, New Jersey, with a placard or lettering, in letters not less than three inches high, on a contrasting background, showing that said motor vehicle was transporting a dangerous commodity. (49 C.F.R. 77. 823; Section 835, U.S.Code Title 18.)
“Count 2..
“On or about the 1st day of October, 1952, in the Eastern District of Illinois, Chicago Express, Inc., defendant, a corporation, a common carrier by motor ve-hide, did knowingly and wilfully fail to equip with red rear reflectors a semitrailer, namely Company Trailer No. S39, Missouri Registration No. 7251 (1952), used in the transportation of property, namely para nitroaniline solid, from Monsanto, Illinois, while enroute to Bound Brook, New Jersey. (49 C.F.R. 193.14; Title 49, Sec. 322(a), U. S. Code.)”

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