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, v. Johnnie DEWS, Appellant.
No. 22347.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 1, 1969.
Decided June 26, 1969.
Mr. Edmund D. Campbell, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant.
Mr. John D. Aldock, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, and Harold H. Titus, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief for appellee.
Before Burger, McGowan and Tamm, Circuit Judges.
Burger, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the disposition of this case.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted of carnal knowledge of a female under 16 years of age in violation of 22 D.C.Code § 2801 (1967). He attacks his conviction by means of three allegations of error. Only one, however, requires extended discussion.
Appellant’s only substantial contention of error is that the prosecutor exceeded permissible bounds in his closing argument to the jury. Upon inspection of the record, we find that both the prosecutor and defense counsel offended by the use of improper argument to the jury (see, e.g., Tr. 171, 172, 183, 185, 202, 208). We point out again, as we have in the past, that attorneys should refrain from arguing their personal opinions to the jury as to the veracity of the defendant. Indeed, we had occasion to make this clear recently in Harris v. United States, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 105, 107, 402 F.2d 656, 658 (1968):
Many strong adjectives could be used but it was for the jury, and not the prosecutor, to say which witnesses were telling the truth.
See, also Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935); Taylor v. United States, - U.S.App.D.C. 188, 413 F.2d 1095 (decided May 1, 1969).
In the particular circumstances of this ease it was improper for the prosecutor to refer to the defendant’s “prevarication” (Tr. 171). It was equally improper, however, for defense counsel to tell the jury that the prosecutrix “is easily a recipient of suggestions from clever enforcement officers,” (Tr. 185) or to inform the jury that “I think he (the prosecutor) bought their testimony” (Tr. 183).
After a careful reading of the closing arguments for both sides, we find that, although both counsel exceeded permissible limits, their statements were not such as to enable us to conclude that the remarks so prejudiced the defendant that a new trial is required. We are buttressed in our conclusion by the fact that this case was basically a “credibility contest” between the defendant and the prosecutrix. The jury believed the prosecutrix’ version and not that of the defendant. We will not alter their choice. Thus, we find, as we did in Harris, that the excessive zeal of counsel did not have a “significant impact on this case.” Harris v. United States, supra, 402 F.2d at 657.
Since we find no reversible error in the district court proceedings, appellant’s conviction must be
Affirmed.
. Appellant also argues that the failure of the trial judge to instruct the jury on the need for corroboration of the prosecutrix’ identification of appellant constitutes “plain error” (Fed.R.Crim.P. 52 (b)). We find no cause for reversal on this ground because no objection was made at trial and no such instruction was requested by defense counsel. Further, we find that there was in fact sufficient evidenee in the record from which the jury could find corroboration. See Bailey v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 82, 405 F.2d 1352 (1968); Thomas v. United States, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 387 F.2d 191 (1967).
Secondly, appellant argues that failure to instruct on the lesser included offense was reversible error. This claim also fails because appellant did not object to any portion of the charge given and did not request such an instruction.
. Brief for Appellant at 20.

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