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:
Douglas K. KNUTSON, Arlen N. Benham, Geoffrey Beaty, Evan Francis Williams, Joseph W. Berthiaume, Kenneth W. Jackson, Jean E. Nyland, Daniel A. Dutra, Willard B. Kittredge, Robert A. Dutra, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The DAILY REVIEW, INC., a corporation, Bay Area Publishing Co., a corporation, Floyd L. Sparks, an individual, William Chilcote, an individual, Dallas Cleland, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 80-4089.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 10, 1981.
Decided Dec. 28, 1981.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 16, 1982.
Timothy H. Fine, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Thomas Paine, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before SKELTON, Judge, United States Court of Claims, KILKENNY and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Byron G. Skelton, Senior Judge, United States Court of Claims, sitting by designation.
KILKENNY, Circuit Judge:
This litigation is no stranger to us. It was originally initiated as an action by independent distributors of certain newspapers against appellees, publishers of these newspapers, in which it was claimed that both the appellees’ newspaper dealership contracts and its termination of its independent dealership system violated antitrust laws. Initially, the United States district court decisions found for the distributors on the price fixing count and for the appellees on the remaining counts, but awarded neither damages nor injunctive relief.
On appeal, we held that the evidence supported the district court’s factual finding that there was no conspiracy between the publishers, that the distributors failed to show either that the publishers’ termination of its independent distribution system and conversion to an employee-distributor system effected a horizontal restraint on trade or that the termination was in furtherance of a price fixing conspiracy, and that the distributors failed to establish that the territorial division for distributors was part of a price fixing scheme. Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795 (CA9 1976). We disagreed, however, with the lower court’s analysis of the authorities on the issue of damages, and, consequently, we remanded the cause for a reconsideration of that issue.
On remand, the district court thoroughly analyzed the record and the facts before it. In an extremely well written and exhaustive opinion, the district court found against the appellants on the issue of compensatory damages and held that the appellants were entitled to nominal damages only. Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 468 F.Supp. 226 (N.D. Cal.1979).
Our examination of the record convinces us that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and that its judgment must be affirmed. Our previous opinion did not instruct the district court that it must grant compensatory damages. Bearing in mind the caveat of our brethren in this circuit that we should avoid repetition and, where possible, follow a rule of brevity, we affirm the judgment of the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in its opinion. The finding of the district court that the appellants were entitled to nominal damages only was not clearly erroneous.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 383 F.Supp. 1346 (N.D.Cal.1974); Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 401 F.Supp. 1374 (N.D.Cal.1975).

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: 10