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:
KRAUSS v. UNITED STATES (two cases).
Nos. 10852, 10853.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 17, 1944.
Irving R. Saal, of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Warren F. Wattles and Sewall Key, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Henry C. Vosbein, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and McCORD, ¡Circuit Judges.
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.
Claiming overpayment of gift taxes in respect of gifts in 1936 and 1937 of shares of Class A stock in the Krauss Company, Ltd., appellants sued for their refund. The refunds denied, appellants are here putting forward the same contention they made below, that the value for gift tax purposes of the shares donated was their value in the hands of the donors; that that value was fixed by the charter at sixty percent of the book value; and that the commissioner, in ascribing more than that value to the shares, and the court, in denying the refunds, erred.
In an opinion, canvassing and rejecting appellants’ claims the District Judge has fully set down the undisputed facts as they were stipulated by the parties, and we content ourselves with referring to that opinion for their detail.
Here, as they did below, appellants insist that Lomb v. Sugden, 2 Cir., 82 F.2d 166, and the cases it cites, are controlling. The United States denies this. It concedes that there are general expressions !n that case which would support appellants’ view that the provision relied on here, that if a stockholder decides to sell, he must first give a sixty day privilege to the other stockholders to buy at the price fixed, had the effect claimed for it to limit the value to that price. It points out though that this was not the real holding of that case, that its holding was that the value of stock to the estate of a deceased stockholder under a contract provision conferring an absolute option or right on the other stockholders for a time fixed to buy at a price named, fixed the value to the estate at that price. Helvering v. Salvage, 297 U.S. 106, 56 S.Ct. 375, 80 L.Ed. 511, cited in support, is to the same effect. Pointing out that the provision relied on here imposes no compulsion to sell, grants no absolute option to buy, but only a conditional one, the condition being that if a stockholder wants to sell, he must first give to the other stockholders a right for sixty days to buy at a fixed price, the United States insists that a restrictive provision of this kind, while a factor in arriving at the value, is not its sole determinant. We agree, and agreeing, we affirm the judgment without inquiring whether the value fixed by the commissioner was or was not correct. For in a suit for refund, a taxpayer has the burden not merely of showing that the commissioner’s assessment was erroneous, but that the value the taxpayer took as the basis of his claim for refund was right, and he was, therefore, entitled to the amount for which he sues. Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507, at page 514, 55 S.Ct. 287, 79 L.Ed. 623. The judgment is affirmed.
51 F.Supp. 388.
As material here, they may be thus briefed: Frederick Krauss, in 1936, gave his niece 470, and his nephew 410, shares of Class A stock, and in 1937, gave each of them 245 more of such shares. Alfred Krauss in 1936 gave his nephew and niece each 410 shares of Class A stock and in 1937 gave each 50 more of such shares. Each calculated and returned the gift taxes involved on the basis of 60 percent of the actual book value of the shares as shown by the last preceding monthly trial balance of the corporation. They based this valuation upon the claim, that a provision in Art. 12 of the Charter, in effect that before a sale could be made to an outsider the other stockholders should have a sixty day preference right to purchase the shares at 60 per cent of the book value, fixed that value as the value for gift tax purposes. The commissioner rejected this theory of valuation and, upon considerations not necessary to detail here, fixed full book value as the value for gift tax purposes.
“We there determined that an option contract, giving stockholders a right to purchase at a specified price, upon the owner’s sale or death, limited the value of the stock to the low price at which he or his executors were obliged to sell it.” Lomb v. Sugden, 2 Cir., 82 F.2d at page 167.
In Fostoria Glass Co. v. Yoke, D.C., 45 F.Supp. 962, at page 965 this distinction is carefully pointed out.

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