Task: songer_appbus

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
PER CURIAM:
The above entitled actions were consolidated for trial in the District Court. The appeal in each case involved the same issues of fact and law. The appellants appeared in propria persona in the District Court and in these appeals and have filed consolidated briefs on appeal.
Demand for refunds of income taxes allegedly overpaid for the year 1971 were made by the appellants, Theep for $124.57 and Steinert for $932.48. The refunds were denied and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued and served on each appellant a summons to produce all bank records, and all other records pertaining to the information used in the preparation of their tax returns and the computation of tax as disclosed in their income tax returns relating to the years 1969, 1970 and 1971. Each appellant presented himself before the appellee, Revenue Agent Ronald H. Eggleston, at the appointed time, December 7, 1972, and place, with his records but refused to disclose them to the Revenue Agent or to testify as to the said records, claiming the information was protected by the unreasonable search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment and their right not to incriminate themselves under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Government then petitioned the District Court for enforcement of the summons whereupon the appellants moved to dismiss the petition for enforcement and petitioned the Court for an injunction prohibiting the appellee Eggleston from issuing any further “abusive” process. As part of their petitions for injunction, Theep asserted his 1971 tax was overpaid by $124.57 and appellant Steinert claimed overpayment of his 1971 tax in the sum of $932.48. It is to be noted that the 1969 deficiency was determined by the IRS from the information at hand before the running of the statute of limitations.
The Government, at the hearing on December 7, 1972, conceded that there might be specific answers or documents which were protected by the Constitution but objected to the blanket refusal by .the taxpayers to disclose their records.
In the circumstances the Government summons enforcement proceedings were not barred by Title 26, U.S.C. § 6213(a), because of the refusal of the IRS to make the 1971 refunds claimed by the taxpayers. The Government was investigating the appellant’s tax returns, not seeking to assess or collect unpaid taxes. No showing of probable cause is required for this investigation or enforcement of summonses. The summonses were properly issued for the purpose of determining whether any deficiency existed for the pertinent years.
Although the appellants could not avoid the summonses by a blanket claim of privilege under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, neither is the Government entitled to have the records produced by the appellants turned over to it in toto for its examination. As stated by this Court in United States v. Bell, 448 F.2d 40, at 42 (1971), the law recognizes that a taxpayer must appear for questioning, and as to each question asked or document sought by the Government may decide whether to raise the Fifth Amendment privilege.
It does not appear that Agent Eggles-ton made the specific inquiries required to afford the appellants the opportunity to make appropriate objection to the production of separate documents or records sought by the Government for inspection.
The unlawful search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment do not protect the taxpayer from an IRS summons in an investigation proceeding of the nature involved in the instant case once the Fifth Amendment is satisfied. Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, at 522, 91 S.Ct. 534, 27 L.Ed. 2d 580 (1971); and United States v. Ahmanson, 415 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 1969).
The order of enforcement of the District Court is affirmed and the case is remanded for further proceedings to be conducted in accordance with this opinion.

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.
Answer:

Answer: 99