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 v. METZGER, Judge, et al.
No. 10291.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Jan. 9, 1943.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing April 5, 1943.
Norman M. Littell, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Vernon L. Wilkinson and Roger P. Marquis, Attys., Dept, of Justice, both of Washington, D. G, for petitioner.
Delbert E. Metzger in pro. per., of Honolulu, T. H., for respondent D. E. Metzger.
Olaf Oswald in pro. per., of Honolulu, T. H., for respondent Oswald.
Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.
DENMAN, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner filed its petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel respondent Oswald, the court reporter for the United States District Court for the Territory of Hawaii, an officer appointed pursuant to Section 86 of the Act of April 30, 1900, 31 Stat. 158, c. 339, 48 U.S.C.A. § 644, to furnish petitioner, for purposes of an appeal here, taken from a judgment of that court in a suit in which petitioner is a party, a transcript of the proceedings of the trial therein, which transcript Oswald refused to furnish unless paid certain amounts per folio, a payment in excess of his official salary.
The petition also sought -the writ against Judge Metzger to compel him to order Reporter Oswald to furnish the transcript without charge to petitioner. An order to show cause was issued and served upon the ■two respondents, who have appeared and responded to it.
The jurisdiction of this court to entertain .the petition for the writ in a case on appeal here exists in the aid of the appeal, which the refused performance of Oswald's alleged official duty may embarrass or prevent. Judicial Code § 262, 28 U.S.C. 377, 28 U.S.C.A. § 377.
Oswald admits the allegations of the petition of the demand of the petitioner for the transcript and his refusal to furnish it, but alleges on information and belief that his refusal finally took the form of an offer that “if the United States would agree to accept delivery of and pay for each 100 pages of transcript when and as prepared by respondent, he would proceed forthwith, being willing to gamble his labor in preparing the first 100 pages on the Government’s good faith in the matter.” His answer claims affirmatively, also on information and belief, an agreement of petitioner to pay the added folio charges.
Such allegations of matters in which Oswald personally participated are of his own knowledge and may not be placed in issue in a mandamus proceeding by mere affirmations concerning a pleader’s information and belief. No proof was offered to support the affirmative allegations of Oswald’s answer. However, no question was raised as to the sufficiency of the answer and the petitioner relies on its claim of the absence of its authority to agree to pay Oswald more than his statutory compensation for furnishing the transcript. In this we agree with petitioner.
We have held that the furnishing of the transcript is an “official service” which is an “ordinary duty” of Oswald’s office, for which he cannot claim compensation in excess of his official salary, though such added compensation is attempted to be provided by a rule of court. Oswald v. United States, 9 Cir., 96 F.2d 10, 13. It is provided in R.S. § 1765, 5 U.S.C. § 70, 5 U.S.C.A. § 70, that
“No officer in any branch of the public service, or any other person whose salary, pay, or emoluments are fixed by law or regulations, shall receive any additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation, in any form whatever, for the disbursement of public money, or for any other service or duty whatever, unless the same is authorized by law, and the appropriation therefor explicity states that it is for such additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation.”
Oswald does not claim and we know of no such appropriation of Congress providing for such added compensation to the court reporter for the Hawaiian district court for furnishing of the transcript in question. The appropriation for stenographic services for the Department of Justice contains no “explicit statement” tfiat any of it may be paid to official reporters as “additional compensation.” It is intended for compensation to reporters not officers, as in Miller v. United States, supra. The petitioner had no power to make such an agreement as described in Oswald’s answer. It is entitled to its writ against him.
Petitioner also seeks our writ of mandamus against respondent Judge Metzger of the District Court of Hawaii to compel him to order Oswald to furnish the transcript to it without such per folio additional compensation. It alleged that it moved the court presided over by Judge Metzger for its order to compel such action, but that, instead of granting the motion, the court ordered Oswald to furnish the transcript upon payment of the per folio charges of its court rules, which apparently, have not been amended to conform to our decision in Oswald v. United States, supra.
There is no provision for an appeal from such an order. It is arguable that such an order hampers an appeal and hence that we may, by mandamus, have it set aside. State of Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9, 29, 46 S.Ct. 185, 70 L.Ed. 449. In view of what has been said, we do not deem it necessary to consider such action.
The writ against Reporter Oswald as prayed for is granted.
Unlike the reporters in other district courts for which no statutory provision is made. Cf. Miller v. United States, 63 S.Ct. 187, 87 L.Ed. —.

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