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:
In re KOUNTZE BROS. et al. CITY OF CANTON, OHIO, et al. v. IRVING TRUST CO.
Nos. 328-330.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 22, 1939.
Gould & Wilkie, of New York City (M. S. Lockhart and John F. Boyer, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant City of Canton, Ohio.
Olney & Comstock, of New York City (Irving Smith, Jr., of New York City, of counsel), for appellant Big Horn County, Wyo.
Zabriskie, Sage, Gray & Todd, of New York City (Melber Chambers, William E. Sims, and Edward H. Spencer, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellants San Juan County, N. M., and others.
Allen R. Memhard, of New York City (Henry A. Jones,, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.
PATTERSON, Circuit Judge.
Kountze Brothers were private bankers in New York. One of the firm’s activities was to act for cities, counties, school districts and so on in payment of bonds and coupons. The firm closed its doors on October 13, 1931, and later went into bankruptcy. Reclamation proceedings were brought by the appellants, the City of Canton, Ohio, Big Horn County, Wyoming, and a number of counties, cities and districts in New Mexico, claiming that moneys sent by them to the bankrupts for the purpose of paying coupons made payable at the bankrupts’ place of business were received and held by the latter in á trust capacity. The referee took the view that the appellants were merely general creditors of the bankrupts and dismissed the petitions. The district court took the same view and affirmed the referee’s orders.
In Re Kountze Bros. (City of Los Angeles v. Irving Trust Company), 2 Cir., 103 F.2d 785, decided May 1, 1939, we passed on a similar claim made against this estate and held that the deposits made with the bankrupt firm by Los Angeles for the purpose of meeting bonds and coupons resulted in a debtor and creditor relationship. The authorities were discussed and from them the general principle was drawn that a deposit of funds with bankers for the purpose of meeting coupons owed by the depositor does not create a trust save in cases where it is plainly shown that by understanding of the parties the bankers were not to use the funds in their general business. In view of the full discussion in the Los Angeles case it would be superfluous to review the authorities again.
The features said to distinguish the present claims from that of Los Angeles are that commissions were paid by the present appellants to the bankers for their services in paying bonds and coupons, and that there was no agreement or practice of sending on the funds a specified number of days in advance of the due dates. We recognize that the presence of commissions and the absence of a fixed interval of time between deposits and the due dates of the bonds or coupons make the present claims somewhat more potent than the Los Angeles claim. But there is not enough to indicate that the parties contemplated a holding apart of the funds in trust. The bankers put the moneys into their general funds. In the correspondence there is frequent mention of crediting and charging of items to the accounts and of balances in the accounts. The record shows that the bankers had part of the moneys deposited by the appellants for considerable periods, owing to the fact that many coupons would be presented days, weeks or months late, and that the appellants were aware of this. Indeed, the funds sought to be reclaimed are in the main unapplied balances of deposits made months before the failure. The presumption is that deposits of money in a bank give rise to the relation of debtor and creditor, not to one-of trustee and beneficiary, and the facts in these cases do not take them out of the general rule. We see no distinction between these cases and Staten Island Cricket & Baseball Club v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 41 App.Div. 321, 58 N.Y.S. 460.
Big Horn County made an effort to prove that it had an explicit understanding with the bankers that the funds were held by the latter in trust. Several witnesses in behalf of the county testified to an alleged exchange of letters in 1929, in which the bankers acknowledged that the moneys were trust funds. There was no trace of the letters or copies of them, however, in the county’s files or in the bankers’ files. The referee and the district judge found that the alleged understanding had not been proved. We are of the same opinion.
Affirmed,

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