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:
JACK DANIEL DISTILLERY, LEM MOTLOW, PROP., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOFFMAN DISTILLING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and Frank Silverman & Company, Intervener-Appellee.
No. 14514.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 3, 1962.
Joe E. Daniels, New York City, Ben H. Morris, Louisville, Ky., Chauncey P. Carter, Washington, D. C., Liddy, Sullivan, Hart, Daniels & Stemple, New York City, John J. Hooker, Tyree B. Harris, III, Hooker, Keeble, Dodson & Harris, Nashville, Tenn., on the brief, for appellant.
Charles B. Cannon, Chicago, Ill., John K. Skaggs, Jr., James E. Fahey, Skaggs, Hays & Fahey, Louisville, Ky., Max W. Petacque, Chicago, Ill., on the brief, for appellees.
Before CECIL and WEICK, Circuit Judges, and DARR, Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
In the District Court plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from imitating its methods of advertising and packaging Jack Daniel’s Black Label Whiskey on the grounds of infringement of its trademark and unfair competition. Plaintiff’ claimed that it had expended large sums of money in advertising certain expressions and packaging of Jack Daniel’s products and that they had acquired a secondary meaning identifying them with Jack Daniel’s whiskey; that defendants were unfairly competing with plaintiff by intentional use of similar expressions and methods of advertising.
The District Judge heard the evidence and in a well-considered opinion, which he adopted as findings of fact and conclusions of law, dismissed the complaint because of failure of the plaintiff to establish its case. The Court also can-celled plaintiff’s trademark on the ground that it had been abandoned for more than two consecutive years without intent to renew its use.
The brand names Jack Daniel and Ezra Brooks and the names of Jack Daniel Distillery and Ezra Brooks Distilling Company appeared prominently on the labels on their respective bottles. Ezra Brooks, however, did adopt or imitate a number of the features employed by Jack Daniel. These were as follows:
1. A square bottle with a black and white wrap-around label.
2. On Jack Daniel’s label appeared the words “90 Proof for Character.” Ezra Brooks used the expression “90 Proof by Choice.”
3. A picture of a small old time distillery on the label.
4. Jack Daniel advertised its whiskey as “Rare Old Sippin’ Whiskey” and also used the word “sippin’ ” in describing the whiskey. Eara Brooks’ label stated “Real Sippin’ Whiskey.”
5. Jack Daniel used the expression “Charcoal Mellowed Drop by Drop.” Ezra Brooks featured on its label “Charcoal Filtered” and in its advertising “Every Sip is Mellowed ’Cause Every Drop is-Charcoal Filtered.”
6. A small black and white cardboard neckpiece on the bottle extolling the whiskey and the distillery.
7. Jack Daniel advertised that its whiskey was in short supply. Ezra Brooks claimed with respect to its whiskey that “There just ain’t enuf to go around.”
Despite these similarities, the District Court found from the evidence that no retail dealer or any representative of' defendants had ever attempted to sell or pass off Ezra Brooks whiskey for Jack Daniels whiskey. There was no showing that a member of the consuming public was ever confused or misled into buying Ezra Brooks whiskey thinking it was Jack Daniels whiskey. In other words, the proof did not show that these imitated features had a secondary meaning as-identifying the source of the whiskey.
It was not unlawful for Ezra Brooks to copy unpatented products of Jack Daniel so long as they are properly identified and do not mislead the public into believing that Ezra Brooks’ products are those of Jack Daniel. Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111, 59 S.Ct. 109, 83 L.Ed. 73; Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 271 F.2d 569 (CA 2); Speedry Products, Inc. v. Dri Mark Products, Inc., 271 F.2d 646 (CA 2); Tas-T-Nut Co. v. Variety Nut & Date Co., 245 F.2d 3 (CA 6); West Point Mfg. Co. v. Detroit Stamping Co., 222 F.2d 581, 591 (CA 6); Hemmeter Cigar Co. v. Congress Cigar Co., Inc., 118 F.2d 64 (CA 6); Upjohn Co. v. William S. Merrell, 269 F. 209 (CA 6).
The fact that some of the statements made by Ezra Brooks concerning its product were false and untrue does not make out a case of unfair competition in favor of plaintiff. Mosler Safe Co. v. Ely-Morris Safe Co., 273 U.S. 132, 47 S.Ct. 314, 71 L.Ed. 578; American Washboard Co. v. Saginaw Mfg. Co., 103 F. 281 (CA 6).
The findings of fact of the District Judge are supported by substantial evidence and are binding on us. He has applied the correct rules of law.
There was no error in cancelling plaintiff’s trademark as the proof established it had been abandoned without intention to renew in the latter part of 1953. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1127.
The judgment of the District Court is 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: 1