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:
SAVKO BROTHERS COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 15742.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 17, 1964.
Argued by C. Stanley Taylor, Columbus, Ohio, Schwenker, Teaford, Brothers & Bernard, Columbus, Ohio, on the brief, Robert E. Teaford, Columbus, Ohio, of counsel, for petitioner.
Argued by Carolyn R. Just, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, I. Henry Kutz and Carolyn R. Just, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for respondent.
Before EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, BOYD, District Judge, and PRETTY-MAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
. Senior Circuit Judge E. Barrett Prettyman of the District of Columbia Circuit sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal the taxpayer (Savko Brothers Company) seeks to reverse a tax deficiency judgment of $4,096.79. The Commissioner had previously found (and had contended before the Tax Court for) a deficiency of $36,496.51. The dispute turns upon whether or not salaries. and bonuses paid to the corporation’s two principal officers and stockholders were or were not “reasonable” within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 162(a) (l).
Two brothers, Nick and Charley Savko, were recipients of the salaries and bonuses and paid personal income taxes thereon. They had organized the corporation late in 1955 to engage in the building, construction and excavating business in which both had considerable prior experience. It is undisputed that through their joint efforts in estimating jobs, in getting business, in laying out work and supervising it, they were personally responsible for the considerable success of the company.
The financial picture of the taxpayer company is shown in these figures:
Year Ending June 30 Gross Receipts Net Income (Loss) Total Compensation to Savkos
1957 $461,666.10 $(11,273.85) $62,500
1958 555,672.88 26,205.24 49.000
1959 775,916.01 38,683.27 52.000
The Commissioner’s and the Tax compensation was as follows: Court’s treatment of the Savkos’ total
Commissioner Tax Court
Taxable Year Ended June 30 Compensation Allowed Tax Deficiency Compensation Allowed Tax Deficiency
1957 $26,000.00 $ 6,873.11 $49,000.00 $ -0-
1958 26,000.00 16,103.40 49.000. 00 4,096.79
1959 26,000.00 13,520.00 52.000. 00 -0-
The Tax Court on this record held amounts paid each of the Savko brothers in 1957 “was unreasonable as compensation for services actually rendered * * * to the extent of $6,750 each.” It thus appears that the Tax Court allowed $24,500 as “reasonable” compensation to each officer for the first year of operation of the company at a time when the company showed a loss. This was the same compensation which the company paid to each brother in the following year — the first year when the company showed a profit.
Under this record we cannot say that the Tax Court’s determination was “clearly erroneous.” Rule 52(a) Fed. R.Civ.P.; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218 (1960) v. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).
Affirmed.
. § 162. Trade or business expenses.
“(a) In General. — There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including — •
“(1) a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered; * * * ” 26 U.S.C.1958 ed., Sec. 162 (a) (1).

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