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:
UNITED STATES of America v. Anthony J. J. A. WILSON, Hedwig C. Wilson, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, and Travelers Insurance Company, Travelers Insurance Company, Appellant.
No. 13859.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued April 5, 1963.
Submitted Oct. 12, 1963.
Decided April 10, 1964.
See also 3 Cir., 304 F.2d 530.
Stryker, Tams & Dill, Newark, N. J., Burtis W. Horner, Newark, N. J., of counsel, for appellant Travelers Ins. Co.
Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Joseph Kovner, Michael A. Mulroney, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and McLaughlin, kalodner, staley, HASTIE, GANEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is the appeal of the Travelers Insurance Company (“Travelers”) in the Section 7403, Internal Revenue Code of 1954, action brought against delinquent taxpayer, Anthony Wilson, and involving foreclosure of a tax lien on his interest in certain unmatured insurance policies. The separate appeal of the Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company in this same proceeding is filed concurrently herewith and is reported at 333 F.2d 137 (1964).
The facts of the case at bar are set out in the opinions of the court below reported at 182 F.Supp. 567 (1960), at 191 F.Supp. 69 (1961), and at 195 F.Supp. 332 (1961), and in the “Tabulation of Information re Life Insurance Policies” appended to our opinion in United States v. Sullivan, 333 F.2d 100 (1964), filed concurrently herewith. The “Tabulation” is incorporated into this opinion by reference.
It is unnecessary to recite the facts here. For present purposes it is sufficient to state that unlike the four other tax lien-insurance cases decided this day, no question was presented below as to Travelers respecting policy loans or automatic premium loans and the proper measure of the Government’s recovery. The company professed its willingness to turn over the cash surrender value of its policy to the Government pursuant to a proper order of the court. Travelers, however, made application for an allowance of a setoff for its costs in the proceeding, which consisted almost exclusively of attorney’s fees. The court below denied the company’s request and this determination forms the basis of the present appeal.
Travelers asserts that its status in the case at bar has been that of a stakeholder of its policy’s cash surrender value and that by reason thereof, it is entitled to recover its costs out of the fund citing as authority a number of cases dealing with interpleader. Travelers’ claim in the circumstances of this case is ill-founded and does not require extended discussion. The company, of course, was in a fundamental sense a stakeholder in the proceeding below notwithstanding the fact that it occupied the nominal status of defendant rather than interpleader. But it is far from clear that Travelers acted the role of a disinterested party.
The Government flatly asserts on this appeal without citing any record references in support of its claim, that Travelers “devoted substantial time and energy to developing and briefing an argument on the automatic premium loan question [which was posed with respect to its codefendant, the Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company].” Brief for Appellee, p. 65. Some substance is given to this assertion by the fact that in its appeal brief filed with this court, Travelers devoted some twenty-three pages of argument to the automatic premium loan and related issues (because of their “fundamental importance to the insurance industry,” Brief for Appellant, p. 5) and only four pages to the cost question. Travelers apparently did not particularize its costs other than as indicated in note 3 supra. In private actions in the nature of interpleader in which the stakeholder asserts or maintains a substantial adversary position, courts properly exercise their discretion to disallow recovery of costs. See Groves v. Sentell, 153 U.S. 465, 485-486, 14 S.Ct. 898, 38 L.Ed. 785 (1894) ; Century Ins. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 102 F.2d 726, 729 (5 Cir.), cert. denied, 308 U.S. 570, 60 S.Ct. 84, 84 L.Ed. 478 (1939); American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Naviera Andes Peruana, S.A., 208 F.Supp. 164, 171-172 (N.D.Cal. 1962).
It would be superfluous, however, to pursue this line of inquiry further. What is more clearly of controlling importance here is the fact that the Government’s delinquency claim against Wilson far exceeded the total amount of its judgment. To allow Travelers to recover its costs, therefore, would be to impair the value of the tax lien. We are of the view that existing law precludes such a result. See United States v. R. F. Ball Const. Co., 355 U.S. 587, 78 S.Ct. 442, 2 L.Ed.2d 510 (1958) (per curiam); United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 215, 75 S.Ct. 247, 99 L.Ed. 268 (1955); Seaboard Sur. Co. v. United States, 306 F.2d 855 (9 Cir. 1962); United States v. Chapman, 281 F.2d 862 (10 Cir. 1960); Narragansett Bay Gardens v. Grant Const. Co., 176 F.Supp. 451 (D.R.I.1959).
No other issues being presented on this appeal, the judgment against Travelers Insurance Company will be affirmed.
. Those facts set out in the “Tabulation” which are enclosed by parentheses are not in the record of the case. The “Tabulation” must be read with that in mind.
. There apparently had been no applications for pay-outs of the policy’s cash surrender value at times pertinent to the Government’s claim and premiums on the policy had been prepaid through the time of judgment in the court below.
. The “Affidavit in Support of Application for Counsel Fee” filed by counsel for Travelers stated that “a fair and reasonable charge [for counsel fees] would be $650.00, together with our out-of-pochet expenses in the amount of $7.88.”

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