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:
Robert Darrell YEARGAIN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18186.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
March 11, 1963.
John F. Bremer, Downey, Cal., for appellant.
Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Criminal Section, and A. Robert Throckmorton, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and PENCE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from a conviction by the trial court of two counts of violating Section 472 of Title 18 United States Code, uttering counterfeit money. It is undisputed that the money passed in each instance was counterfeit. While some question of identification of the appellant as the “passer” was made below, that point, decided adversely to appellant, is not raised on appeal.
The primary question raised is this:
Is the fact appellant testified he ’“washed” a counterfeit $20 bill (a statement proved false by expert testimony, if the expert was believed) sufficient to permit the jury to infer a guilty knowledge on the part of appellant that the "bills were counterfeit, i. e., that he had .an intent to defraud?
We hold this was a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact; a determination we will not disturb. Sandez v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 239. We must view the evidence .and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the government. Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680; C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co. v. United States, 9 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 489, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 892, 73 S.Ct. 211, 97 L.Ed. 690.
A second and secondary question raised is whether the trial court erred in granting two but denying three of the five items requested in a Bill of Particulars.
Items 1 and 2, plus the indictment returned, informed appellant as to (1) the denominations of the two bills; (2) that they were Federal Reserve Notes; (3) the date of passing; (4) the exact time of day; and (5) the state, county, city and exact street location where each bill was allegedly passed.
Denied to appellant were the names of the persons receiving the bills, and the time and place where those who received the bills first “became aware” or “discovered” the bills were counterfeit. Eleven days before trial the government advised appellant’s counsel who the recipient of each bill was.
The purpose of a bill of particulars is to protect a defendant against a second prosecution for an inadequately described offense, and enable him to prepare an intelligent defense. Remmer v. United States, 9 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 277, 281. A defendant is not entitled to know all the evidence the government intends to produce, but only the theory of the government’s case. Remmer v. United States, supra, p. 282; United States v. Caserta, 3 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 905.
The granting or refusal to grant the bill of particulars is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Wong Tai v. United States, 1927, 273 U. S. 77,47 S.Ct. 300, 71 L.Ed. 545; Rodella v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 286 F.2d 306, 310, certiorari denied 365 U.S. 889, 81 S.Ct. 1042, 6 L.Ed.2d 199.
Its function is not to provide a defendant with names of government witnesses. Duke v. United States, 9 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 721, 729.
Appellant’s substantial rights were not prejudiced, and no showing of surprise was made at the trial, nor any continuance asked. Williams v. United States, 9 Cir., 1961, 289 F.2d 598; Schino v. United States, 9 Cir., 1954, 209 F.2d 67, 69-70.
A reading of the entire transcript clearly indicates appellant received a fair trial. No error has been established.
The convictions are Affirmed.
. “§ 472. Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities
“Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent brings into the United States or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, 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: 0