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:
Robert E. IANNELLI and Dolores Iannelli, his wife v. H. Alan LONG, District Director, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Johnnie M. Walters, Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the United States of America, successor to Harold T. Swartz, Appellants.
No. 72-1418.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 27, 1973.
Decided June 29, 1973.
Certiorari Denied Nov. 19, 1973.
See 94 S.Ct. 541.
Robert E. Lindsay, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tax Div., Meyer Rothwacks, Chief Appellate Section, John P. Burke, John M. Brant, Attys. Tax Div. Dept. of Justice, Richard L. Thornburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel, for appellants.
James E. McLaughlin, McArdle, McLaughlin, Paletta & McVay, Pittsburgh, Pa., Charles Alan Wright, Austin, Tex., William A. Camp, of counsel, for appel-lees.
Before HASTIE and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges, and DITTER, District Judge.
OPINION OF THE COURT
HASTIE, Circuit Judge.
The order from which the government has taken this appeal enjoined the District Director and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from seizing or selling, until further order of the court, any property of Robert Iannelli or his wife Dolores to satisfy jeopardy assessments against them for alleged failure to pay overdue federal wagering taxes. In its opinion, W.D.Pa.1971, 333 F.Supp. 407, the court explained that the purpose of this temporary injunction was to protect the taxpayers against possible necessity for self incrimination if, in normal course, they should undertake to establish in a civil suit a right to refund of sums collected pursuant to these assessments while criminal proceedings growing out of their alleged wagering business were pending. The government contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant this injunctive relief because section 7421(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, U.S.C. § 7421(a), provides, with irrelevant exceptions, that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person”.
The parties agree that section 7421(a) is comprehensive and that on its face it seems to prohibit such a suit and such an injunction as we have here. Cf. Enoch v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 1962, 370 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292; Johnson v. Wall, 4th Cir. 1964, 329 F.2d 149. It reflects an evident purpose to protect the public revenue from court imposed delays in the collection of taxes, leaving aggrieved taxpayers to sue for refunds of any amounts improperly collected. Thus, the section presupposes a bona fide attempt of the government to collect revenue. Therefore, if a levy on property is in formal guise an effort to collect taxes but in fact is only a device for harassing and punishing a wrongdoer without honest anticipation that the levy may yield money owed for taxes, it is arguable that a suit to restrain the tax collector’s enterprise is not in reality a suit to restrain the collection of taxes. Accordingly, it is relevant to consider whether we have here a bona fide effort to collect revenue.
The taxpayers do not dispute that they may owe the government substantial sums of overdue taxes, though they dispute the claimed amount of their total indebtedness. Moreover, at the time of the jeopardy assessment and resultant levies the taxpayers, who had not filed a complete inventory of their possessions, appeared to be the owners of mortgaged income producing rental property, a furnished home, a life insurance policy, bank accounts, automobiles and the contents of a safe deposit box. It is not disputed that in the aggregate the levies on their property were intended to and probably would yield substantial revenue, although in the district court counsel for the government conceded that at least some of the real property was so heavily mortgaged that a forced sale would not in likelihood benefit the government.
Though one of the government’s objectives in this undertaking to seize all of the taxpayers’ discoverable property may have been to put economic pressure upon persons believed to be engaged in large scale criminal activities, the jeopardy assessment and consequent levies also appear to have been bona fide and potentially productive attempts to collect revenue. And bona fide efforts to collect taxes through lawful procedure are the very undertakings that Congress has protected through the enactment of section 7421(a) against frustration or delay by litigation.
The district court was understandably and properly concerned that the taxpayers not be forced to choose between forfeiting their property without contesting the tax assessments on the one hand and, on the other, incriminating themselves by admitting in a tax refund suit that they had been engaged in an illicit enterprise for which they already had been indicted. But a tax refund claim and complaint adequate to toll the running of the statute of limitations could be drafted and filed without damaging admissions concerning the details or even the nature of taxpayers’ business. And further proceedings in such a suit would properly be deferred on the plaintiffs’ request until the conclusion of related criminal proceedings against them or until the running of all applicable periods of limitations on prosecutions. Cf. United States v. Kordel, 1970, 397 U.S. 1, 12 note 27, 90 S.Ct. 763, 25 L. Ed.2d 1; De Vita v. Sills, 3d Cir. 1970, 422 F.2d 1172, 1181. And in the unlikely case of an arbitrary refusal of a district judge to grant such a stay, the abuse of discretion would be reviewable in this court.
For these reasons we have concluded that section 7421(a) of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits the relief granted to the taxpayers in this case.
The judgment will be reversed.

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