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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent.
No. 24409.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 14, 1956.
Decided Dec. 14, 1956.
Earl W. Kintner, Gen. B. Dawkins, Asst. Gen. Counsel, John T. Counsel, Robert Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. Loughlin, Asst, to the James E. Corkey, Atty., C., for Federal Trade Commission, petitioner.
Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendl, New York City,!for respondent, Theodore Kiendl, George A. Brownell, John F. Rollins, New York City, and Edward F. Howrey, Washington, D. C., of counsel. !
Before SWAN, MEDINA WATERMAN, Circuit Judges. and
PER CURIAM.
When this petition came on for oral argument on December 14, 1956, it was dismissed from the bench for lack of jurisdiction, with the statement that a written opinion would be handed down later.
The petition was filed November 27, 1956 and the respondent’3 answer on December 11. Without going into greater detail it will suffice to say that the petition alleges in substance that on November 5, 1956 the stockholders of International Paper Company, a New York corporation, and the stockholders of two Missouri corporations, Long-Bell Lumber Corporation and Long-Bell Lumber Company, voted upon and approved a plan of merger; that on November 6, 1956 the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint charging that International by acquisition of the two Long-Bell companies had violated section 7 of the amended Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 18, in that such acquisition may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly as more particularly specified in the complaint; and that if the Commission, after hearings, should find that section 7 has been violated and should order International to divest itself of stock and assets acquired, “it will be impossible to separate the acquired assets from those which are the joint result of the combined operations and the assets of International,” if action contemplated by the respondent with respect to the acquired companies is allowed to occur. The prayer for injunc-tive relief in substance asks that the status quo be maintained until conclusion of the administrative proceeding.
The Clayton Act contains a scheme of dual enforcement. United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303. Section 7 of the Act, and certain other sections not here relevant, may be enforced either by cease and desist orders of the Commission, 15 U.S.C.A. § 21, or by suits in equity instituted by the several district attorneys in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, 15 U.S.C.A. § 25. United States Alkali Export Ass’n v. United States, 325 U.S. 196, 208, 65 S.Ct. 1120, 89 L.Ed. 1554. Individuals may also have injunctive relief against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the anti-trust laws under the same conditions and principles as govern the granting of injunctions by courts of equity, that is to say, district courts, 15 U.S.C.A. § 26. These specific provisions as to who may seek injunctive relief, and in what courts, imply that the Commission itself is not authorized to do so. This implication is required by the statutory provisions of 15 U.S.C.A. § 21, under which a court of appeals acquires jurisdiction to review an order of the Commission only after the administrative proceeding has been concluded and a transcript of the record therein filed with the court. The Commission’s findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive upon the court, and if either party shows grounds for adducing additional evidence, the court may order it to be taken before the Commission. The Clayton Act clearly recognizes that a court of appeals has no fact finding powers, and that if an injunction is to be obtained by a United States Attorney or a private litigant it must be sought in a U. S. District Court under sections 25 or 26 of Title 15, U.S.C.A. Nor did this legislation contemplate applications by the Commission for interlocutory relief by way of injunction to maintain the status quo during the pend-ency of a proceeding before the Commission.
Relying upon Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System v. Transamerica Corp., 9 Cir., 184 F.2d 311, the Commission argues that authority for it to seek an injunction here may be implied from the “all writs” section, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which authorizes the Courts of Appeals to issue any writ “necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.” But, since the pattern of enforcement adopted by the Congress in the Clayton Act makes clear that the Commission was not intended to have such authority, the “all writs” section cannot be invoked to circumvent this limitation. And, if the Commission has no authority to seek an injunction, it is clear we have no power to grant it such relief! With all due respect to our brethren of the Ninth Circuit, we are therefore constrained to disagree with the conclusion arrived at in the Transamerica case.
Action dismissed.
. Cf. Federal Power Comm. v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 304 U.S. 375, 58 S.Ct. 963, 82 L.Ed. 1408; In re National Labor Relations Board, 304 U.S. 486, 58 S.Ct. 1001, 82 L.Ed. 1482.
. It may well be that the Third Circuit in the recent Farm Journal case, D. 6388, also disagreed -with the Transamerica case, but, as no opinion was written, the precise ground on whibl the Third Circuit refused to grant the requested injunction does not appear.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1