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:
In the Matter of LEHIGH VALLEY MILLS, INC., Bankrupt. United States of America, Appellant.
No. 14897.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Dec. 14, 1964.
Decided Feb. 12, 1965.
Sherman L. Cohn, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Drew J. T. O’Keefe, U. S. Atty., John C. Eldridge, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
Joseph R. McDonald, Dower, Kane-hann, Huston, McDonald & Cahn, Allentown, Pa., for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
STALEY, Circuit Judge.
In the bankruptcy proceeding here on appeal, the right to priority in a fund to be created by the liquidation of certain personalty and choses in action of the bankrupt was asserted by the trustee for administration expenses and wage claims, and by the Small Business Administration (“S.B.A.”), an agency of the United States, as the holder of a lien for security interest in the property. There are also general liens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania against all of the property of the bankrupt for certain corporate taxes. Although the Commonwealth is not a party to this appeal, a determination of its rights in the fund is essential.
The operative facts can be briefly summarized. In 1962, a loan of $100,000 was made to Lehigh Valley Mills with the S.B.A. as a 51% participant. The loan was secured by a second mortgage on certain land and buildings of Lehigh, and also by security agreements covering insurance policies, equipment, inventory, and accounts receivable. Lehigh was adjudicated a bankrupt in June 1963. Immediately thereafter, the lenders, including the S.B.A., applied to the Referee for permission to liquidate the collateral. The Referee gave the S.B.A. authority to take possession of the collateral, liquidate it, and apply the proceeds to the loan balance. The trustee sought modification of the Referee’s order to the extent of requiring the S.B.A. to retain the proceeds in escrow for payment of the costs of bankruptcy administration and certain wage claims. The Referee refused to modify the order. The district court reversed and ordered the Referee to take appropriate steps to create a fund available for payment of administration expenses and wage claims. 225 F.Supp. 494 (E.D.Pa., 1964).
The district court held that under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 646, state law must be applied in the determination of the question of priority of liens. It further held that under Pennsylvania law the Commonwealth liens were superior to the lien of the S.B.A. Therefore it concluded that the doctrine of In re Quaker City Uniform Co., 238 F.2d 155 (C.A.3, 1956), cert. denied sub nom. Delsea Corp. v. Flickstein and Veloric v. College Hall Fashions and Synthetic Specialists, Inc., 352 U.S. 1030, 77 S.Ct. 595, 1 L.Ed.2d 599 (1957), applied, resulting in the postponement of the lien of the S.B.A. to administration expenses and wage claims. It also held that even if state law did not apply, the “first in time, first in right” principle of United States v. City of New Britain, 347 U.S. 81, 74 S.Ct. 367, 98 L.Ed. 520 (1954), would' produce the same result. We are compelled to reverse for the reasons hereinafter expressed.
A resolution of the problem requires a determination of the relative priority to be given the lien of the S. B.A. and the liens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on the security, involved. It is well settled that in this determination we must look to Federal law. United States v. Security Trust and Savings Bank, 340 U.S. 47, 49, 71 S.Ct. 111, 95 L.Ed. 53 (1950); State of Illinois ex rel. Gordon v. Campbell, 67 S.Ct. 340, 91 L. Ed. 348, 329 U.S. 362, 371 (1946); United States v. Waddill, Holland & Flinn, Inc., 323 U.S. 353, 65 S.Ct. 304, 89 L.Ed. 294 (1945); Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 1, 10, 44 S.Ct. 232, 68 L.Ed. 533 (1924); United States v. State of Oklahoma, 261 U.S. 253, 260, 43 S.Ct. 295, 67 L.Ed. 638 (1923); Ersa, Inc. v. Dudley, 234 F.2d 178, 180 (C.A.3, 1956). Of course, Congress in many situations has provided that state law should be used to determine the relative priority where a claim of the United States is involved.
The trustee argues that Congress has explicitly done so here by inclusion of the following provision in the Small Business Act:
“Any interest held by the Administration in property, as security for a loan, shall be subordinate to any lien on such property for taxes due on the property to a State, or'political subdivision thereof, in any case where such lien would, under applicable State law, be superior to such interest if such interest were held by any party other than the United States.” 15 U.S.C. § 646.
The statute sets up three separate requirements: (1) the state lien must be a lien on the particular property in controversy; (2) it must be for taxes due on the property; and (3) under state law, the state’s lien must be superior. Assuming arguendo that conditions 1 and 3 have been met, it is clear that the corporation taxes were not due “on the property” here involved.
The corporation taxes owed by Lehigh to the Commonwealth and creating the Commonwealth’s liens were capital stock taxes, corporate loan taxes, and corporate net income taxes. The capital stock tax is one on the dollar value of the corporation’s common, preferred, and special stock, 72 Purdon’s Pa.Stat.Ann. § 1871 (a)', and the valuation of the stock depends upon such factors as its highest selling price per share, average selling price, and earnings per share, 72 Id. § 1901. The corporate loan tax is upon “all scrip, bonds, certificates, and evidences of indebtedness issued * * * by any and every private corporation * * *.” 72 Id. § 3250-10. The corporate net income tax is “at the rate of six per centum per annum upon each dollar of net income of such corporation received by, and accruing to, such corporation * * 72 Id. § 3420c. It is obvious that none of the above taxes are on any particular or specific property. The corporation would have been subject to the taxes in question even if it did not possess any of the property subject to the liens of the S.B. A. This precise line of analysis is followed in two recent Pennsylvania cases. Girard Trust Corn Exchange Bank to the use of Small Business Administration v. Herbert Elkins, Inc., No. 4426, February 14, 1964, Court of Common Pleas No. 4, Philadelphia; First National Bank of Carbondale v. Scranton Battery Corp., No. 649 March Term, 1962, July 31,1964, Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna. Each case involved the interpretation of § 646 in a situation materially identical to that present in the case at bar.
The S.B .A. argues that § 3466 of the Revised Statutes, 31 U.S.C. § 191, is applicable to give the Government priority here. We find no need to deal with this contention as we are fully convinced that the S.B.A. must prevail in any case. The rule of Federal common law is the general equitable principle, “first in time is the first in right.” United States v. City of New Britain, 347 U.S. 81, 85, 74 5. Ct. 367, 370 (1954). That test requires that a lien competing with one of the Federal Government must be choate — i. e., the identity of the lienor, of the property bound by the lien, and of the amount of the lien all must be certain. United States v. City of New Britain, supra at 84. The last requirement, of course, is only met if there is no further opportunity for judicially contesting the amount of the lien. Thus, the lienor must either have obtained judgment on the lien or it must be enforeible against the property by summary proceeding. United States v. Acri, 348 U.S. 211, 75 S.Ct. 239, 99 L. Ed. 264 (1955); United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 215, 75 S.Ct. 247, 99 L.Ed. 268 (1955); United States v. Security Trust and Savings Bank, 340 U.S. 47, 71 S.Ct. Ill (1950). Here, the liens, of course, were not summarily enforeible and had not proceeded to judgment, and under state law, they had not completely bound the property of the bankrupt.
Under Pennsylvania law, the recording of the lien in the county prothonotary’s office is a condition precedent to its enforcement. 72 Purdon’s Pa.Stat. Ann. § 1404. Here they were not so recorded.
Further, the requirement that the property be completely bound by the lien is not met, for in Pennsylvania, a state tax lien is not “actually perfected as a choate lien on personal property until the writ of fieri facias has been issued and delivered to the sheriff for execution.” Ersa, Inc. v. Dudley, 234 F.2d 178, 182 (C.A.3,1956).
We conclude that, under every applicable test, the lien of the S.B.A. on the secured property is superior to the liens of the Commonwealth. This being so, the doctrine of In re Quaker City Uniform Co., 238 F.2d 155 (C.A.3,1956), is not applicable to subordinate the S.B.A.’s interest to administration expenses and wage claims under § 64, sub. a of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 104, sub. a.
The order of the district court will be reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to reinstate the order of the Referee.
. It is settled that the Small Business Administration is an integral part of the Government entitled to priorities due the United States, Small Business Administration v. McClellan, 364 U.S. 446, 450, 51 S.Ct. 191, 5 L.Ed.2d 200 (1960).
. The real property on which the Small Business Administration held a second mortgage was exhausted by the first mortgage.
. That statute requires: “Whenever any person indebted to the United States is insolvent, * * * the debts due to the United States sliall be first satisfied * * *

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: 0