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. Harry M. KATZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-2063
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 23, 1972.
Rehearing Denied March 17, 1972.
Michael L. Kinney, St. Petersburg, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Bernard H. Dempsey, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Interprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.. 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409.
BELL, Circuit Judge:
This appeal is from a judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding Dr. Katz guilty on five counts of an indictment, two of which charged him with filing false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001, and three counts of which charged him with filing false statements in violation of 42 U.S. C.A. § 408(c). He was acquitted on a conspiracy count and on an additional count charging a violation of § 1001.
Dr. Amadio, another defendant, was found guilty on two counts charging violations of § 408(c), supra. Two employees of Pinellas General Hospital, charged in the conspiracy count, were acquitted. Dr. Amadio received a suspended sentence. Dr. Katz was given concurrent sentences with two years imprisonment. This appeal is by Dr. Katz.
The gist of the indictment was that Dr. Katz, a medical doctor, Chief of Staff of Pinellas General Hospital in Largo, Florida, and president of the corporation which owned the hospital, individually, and in conspiracy with others, falsified and misrepresented claims to the Social Security Administration for services allegedly rendered to Medicare patients. See Health Insurance For the Aged Act. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1395 et seq.
There was much evidence concerning the government’s contention that needless and unauthorized hospital and treatment services were rendered to patients for which statements were submitted. There was also evidence to support the government’s claim of billings for services of this type which were not rendered. There were acquittals on the counts embracing these charges.
The convictions rested on counts charging that Dr. Katz and Dr. Amadio billed for patient visits in the hospital which were not made. Dr. Katz vigorously disputes the sufficiency of the evidence in this regard. He also complains of the failure of the district court, on two occasions, to order a mistrial as a result of statements made in the presence of the jury which he categorizes as prejudicial. Finding no error, we affirm.
I.
The test by which we adjudge the sufficiency of the evidence is the now familiar one that the verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the government, to support it. Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680, 704; Strauss v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 311 F.2d 926, 928.
Each of the counts in question charged that Dr. Katz billed for and received Medicare payments for hospital visits to patients which were not made. The five counts involve five patients, each count resting on transactions having to do with a single patient. The patient visits for which billings were made at either ten or fifteen dollars per visit, were in the totals of 40, 18, 10, 9, and 9 visits.
The uniform procedure established on the trial was that Dr. Katz billed for one visit per day during each day that a patient was confined to the hospital. The evidence in support of the government’s case was in the form of testimony of some patients and relatives of some patients that many of the visits were not made. One nurse testified that Dr. Katz made visits to patients on two out of three days at best. Another nurse testified that Dr. Katz visited the approximately twenty five patients in the hospital in a total of twenty minutes. There was other testimony that a patient visit by a doctor was generally noted on the nurse’s patient notes. These notes disclosed only nine of the claimed visits. A doctor who resigned after three weeks with the hospital, testified that he never saw Dr. Katz make patient visits.
The evidence by way of a defense of Dr. Katz was to the contrary. There was testimony from nurses and office assistants that Dr. Katz made daily rounds in the hospital which would have included all patients. His own testimony was to the same effect and that often he made rounds twice daily. The testimony of some of the patients was negative in the sense that they could have been sleeping or under medication and might not have known of a visit by Dr. Katz. There was some testimony that nurses did not always record a visit by a doctor.
In sum, this evidence was sufficient to make a question for the jury as to each count. The jury resolved the issues against Dr. Katz on the five counts and there the matter ends.
II.
The other assignment of error relates to two occurrences during the trial which gave rise to motions for a mistrial. We have carefully examined the substance of each of them by considering them in context and in light of the corrective action taken by the district court. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for mistrial. Cf. United States v. Pritchard, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 327; Leonard v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 386 F.2d 423.
Affirmed.
. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001:
“Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
. 42 U.S.C.A. § 408(c) :
“Whoever—
3: * * * *
“(c) at any time makes or causes to be made any false statement or representation of a material fact for use in determining rights to payment under this subchapter;
* # s¡t '•!:
“shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for more than one year, or both.”

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