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:
HAMMON CONSOL. GOLD FIELDS v. POWELL.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 15, 1929.
No. 5632.
For former opinion, see 32 F.(2d) 855.
O. D. Cochran, of Nome, Alaska, and Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Alfred Sutro, and Eugene M. Prince, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Thomas R.- Lyons and Ira D. Orton, both of Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before RUDKIN and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges, and ST. SURE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The surrender of the lease or option by the appellant naturally gave rise to two questions: First, the liability of the appellant for damages resulting from the surrender; and, second, its liability for installments already accrued and overdue. The first question was not involved in the present action, and the court refrained as far as possible from expressing any opinion in regard to it. However, the appellant contended that a certain provision of the agreement between itself and the trust absolved it from liability for past-due installments, and the court was compelled to construe the provision.to some extent at least in disposing of that contention. Perhaps the court went further than was necessary for that purpose. The provision relied on, together with its context, reads as follows:
“If Gold Fields shall fail to deposit minimum annual payments hereafter to accrue, or unpaid balance of purchase price and accrued interest, or vouchers in lieu thereof, at the times and in the manner as hereinbefore provided, and shall also fail to so deposit within thirty days after the Trust shall have given or shall have caused to be given written notice of default and demand for payment to Gold Fields, or if Gold Fields shall default in the performance or observance of any other of its obligations or covenants contained herein or in any of the leases and options covering the properties enumerated in Schedules B, C and D and shall fail to remedy such default within thirty days after notice and demand to remedy, then the Trust at its option may declare this agreement terminated, and thereupon all the rights of Gold Fields hereunder will cease and terminate, and in such event the Trust will have the right to keep and retain all moneys heretofore paid to it by Gold Fields on account of the option herein contained as rental for the use and occupation of the property the subject of this agreement and as consideration of the rights conferred on Gold Fields hereby, without obligation to account to Gold Fields therefor, and Gold Fields will be without further obligation to make other or further payments to the Trust on account of said option except payment of accrued royalties. No other or further liability shall be imposed on Gold Fields for breach of contract.”
The last sentence of the paragraph is the basis of the contention to which we have referred. On the former hearing, it seemed manifest to us that the appellant could not successfully resist the payment of installments already matured, so long as it remained in possession of the property, and it seemed equally manifest that it could not discharge an existing matured obligation to pay past-due installments by a mere surrender of the property. We find nothing in the sentence relied on or in the petition for rehearing inconsistent with this view. In all other respects, and for all other purposes, the construction of the contract is left open for future consideration, should the question again arise in litigation over the surrender.
The petition for rehearing is denied.

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: 1