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:
James D. HODGSON, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William P. MORRIS and Warren G. Morris, Individually, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 30423
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 28, 1971.
Rehearing Denied and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 31, 1971.
W. H. Albritton, Andalusia, Ala., James W. Kelly, Geneva, Ala., for defendants-appellants; Albrittons & Rankin, Andalusia, Ala., of counsel.
Roger J. Martinson, Atlanta, Ga., Peter G. Nash, Sol. of Labor, Bessie Mar-golin, Associate Sol., Beverley R. Wor-rell, Regional Sol., Carin Ann Clauss, Judith Bleich Kahn, Attys., United States Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
The appellants complain of the decision of the district court in an action brought by the Secretary of Labor under the provisions of § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 217. The Secretary contended that the appellants (employers) were violating provisions of §§ 15(a) (2) and 15(a) (5) of the Act and sought an injunction to restrain such violations and further to restrain the appellants from withholding payment of minimum wages and overtime compensation alleged to be due certain employees. Since the case was submitted upon a written stipulation of facts, there is no factual dispute under review. The district court granted the relief sought except that it refused to enjoin and restrain the appellants from future violations of the Act.
We have given full consideration to the contentions of the parties and find ourselves in agreement with the opinion and judgment of the district court. George P. Shultz (James D. Hodgson), Secretary of Labor v. William P. Morris and Warren G. Morris, 315 F.Supp. 558 (M.D.Ala.1970).
The judgment is affirmed.
. The appellants do not here contest the findings and conclusions of the district court that the three stores involved did constitute an “enterprise” within the meaning of the Act as amended.

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: 99