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:
REINECKE, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. O. D. JENNINGS & CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
January 25, 1927.)
No. 3792.
I. Internal revenue <§=328(3) — Exaction under revenue law on gambling slot machines held for tax and not penalty, so that court is without jurisdiction to enjoin collection (Revenue Act 1918, § 900, par. 5 [Comp. St. 6309%a]; Comp. St. § 5947).
Any exaction under Revenue Act 1918, § 900, par. 5 (Comp. St. § 6309%a), on certain manufactures alleged to be slot machines of exclusively gambling type, is for a tax and not for a penalty, and court was without jurisdiction, under Rev. St § 3224 (Comp. St. § 5947), to restrain its collection.
■2. Internal revenue <§=328(3)— Collection of tax may not be enjoined simply because exaction is not authorized by statute.
Collection of tax may not be enjoined in equity simply because exaction is not authorized by some statute, where taxing authorities believe it to be so.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.
Suit by O. D. Jennings & Co. against Mabel G. Reinecke, as Collector of Internal Revenue at Chicago. Decree restraining defendant from collecting an amount demanded as a tax, and defendant appeals.
Reversed, with directions.
Edwin A. Olson, of Chicago, 111., for ap- . pellant.
Everett Jennings, of Chicago, 111., for appellees.
Before EVANS, PAGE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PAGE, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order restraining appellant, collect- or of internal revenue at Chicago, from collecting from appellee a sum of money that the appellee avers was wrongfully demanded as a' tax under paragraph 5, section 900, of the Revenue Act of 1918 (Comp. St. § 6309%a), on certain of appellee’s manufactures, alleged to be “slot machines of the exclusively gambling type,” known as “operator’s bells” and “traders.”
One of appellee’s contentions is that “the exaction demanded was not a tax,” but it admits that, if it was a tax, the court was, by reason of section 3224 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 5947), without jurisdiction.
Its main reliance, it says, is upon Lipke v. Lederer, 259 U. S. 557, 42 S. Ct. 549, 66 L. Ed. 1061, which was followed by this court in Jakovich v. Mager, 283 F. 980. The question in the Lipke Case arose under section 35 of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138%v). Section 35 and paragraph 5, section 900, supra, are so different in language and purpose that we are of opinion that in the light of the Lipke Case it clearly appears that any exaction under the latter section must be for a tax, and not for a penalty. In fact, appellee makes no argument to show that any exactions leviable under paragraph 5, section 900, are not taxes but seems to concede that fact. It contends that slot machines alleged to be “of the exclusively gambling type” do not come within the language of that paragraph and section, or within any other section of the Revenue Act of 1918, and the whole argument seems to be intended to support appellee’s urge that if an exaction is not authorized by some statute, even though the taxing authorities believe it to be so, its collection may be enjoined in equity. We held to the contrary in Peacock v. Reinecke, 3 F.(2d) 583, 584.
The decree should be and is reversed, with directions to the District Court to vacate the injunction and, dismiss the bill.

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