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:
BOWLES, Adm’r, Office of Price Administration, v. QUON et al.
No. 11105.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 12, 1946.
George Moncharsh, Deputy Adm’r for Enforcement, OPA, David London, Acting Director, Litigation Division, and Nathan Siegel, Sp. Appellate Atty., all of Washington, D. C., Herbert Bent, Regional Litigation Atty., of San Francisco, Cal., and Richard F. Gaines, Enforcement Atty., of San Diego, Cal., for appellant.
Fred Quon, in pro. per.
Before GARRECHT, DENMAN and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
GARRECHT, Circuit Judge.
An appeal as this one from a judgment denying an injunction ordinarily brings up nothing for review but the question of whether the trial court’s discretion was plainly abused.
The lower court found that between July 3, 1944, and July 28, 1944, in violation of Section 2.8 of General Ration Order No. 8, of paragraphs (a) and (d) (1) and (3) of Section 10.5 of Ration Order No. 16 and paragraphs (a) and (c) (1) and (3) of Section 9.5 of Ration Order No. 13, appellees sold to R. D. Sikes, operator of the Nanking Cafe at El Centro, California, various rationed meats without obtaining the established point values therefor. At the time of trial a balance of 2397 points was still owed the appellees.
The lower court also found that between the 1st and 15th day of August, 1944, appellees purchased butter from the Golden State Co., Ltd., and violated the provisions of Section 2.8 of General Ration Order No. 8 and paragraphs (1) and (3) of Section 10.5 of Ration Order No. 16 in that appellees failed to surrender the 2400 points due for the butter until August 25, 1944.
Further, the lower court found appellees displayed and offered for sale on August 9, 1944, fourteen items of rationed meats. Only six were posted as to price, only two were posted as to grade and none were posted as to points.
By paragraph 5 of the Findings of Fact the court found that there had been prior violations of similar character.
However, the court found it would be inequitable and unjust to grant injunctive relief.
The Administrator, Office of Price Administration, on this appeal claims the denial of the injunction in the face of the facts as found was manifest error requiring reversal.
The granting or refusing of an injunction here was a matter resting within the discretion of the trial court, and the appellate court will not interfere with or control the action of the court below in such case unless the court has been found guilty of a clear abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is a plain error, discretion exercised to an end not justified by the evidence, a judgment that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts as are found.
The test is not what this court would have done under the same circumstances — that is not enough. The court must feel that only one order could have been entered on the facts. The facts found by the lower court here admittedly support the application for an injunction. On the face of the record, this might be termed an abuse of discretion evidencing a disregard of the facts. Indeed, the facts found by the lower court confute any exercise of discretion.
The wise procedure would have been to issue the injunction. The injunction imposes no punishment — it merely insures better compliance with the Act. The injunction works no hardship on one who intends to comply with the law.
The judgment of the lower court is reversed in accordance with this opinion.
Reversed.
The Second War Powers Act, 50 U.S.C.A., Appendix, § 631 et seq.
General Ration Order No. 8, 8 Federal Register, 3783; Ration Order No. 13, 8 Federal Register 3591 and Ration Order No. 16, 8 Federal Register 6731.
Vogel v. Warsing, 9 Cir., 146 F. 949; Sommer v. Rotary Lift Co., 9 Cir., 66 F.2d 809; Wilson v. Byron Jackson Co., 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 572; Rogers v. Hill, 289 U.S. 582, 53 S.Ct. 731, 77 L.Ed. 1385, 88 A.L.R. 744; National Fire Insurance Co. v. Thompson, 281 U.S. 331, 50 S.Ct. 288, 74 L.Ed. 881; Murray Hill Restaurant v. Thirteen Twenty One Locust, 3 Cir., 98 F.2d 578; cf. Drilling & Exploration Corp. v. Webster, 9 Cir., 69 F.2d 416.
Hale v. Hale, 6 Cal.App.2d 661, 45 P.2d 246, 247; Graves v. Mount Vernon Trust Co., 2 Cir., 69 F.2d 101; Federal Trade Comm. v. Thomsen-King & Co., 7 Cir., 109 F.2d 510.
cf. Securities and Exchange Comm. v. Sunbeam Gold M. Co., 9 Cir., 95 F.2d 699.

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