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:
ROBERTS v. KIMBROUGH et al. KIMBROUGH v. UNITED STATES. In re PLOWDEN et al.
No. 6600.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 16, 1953.
Decided July 24, 1953.
_ , , _ „ , Edward L. Roberts, pro se. r
Herman S. Greitzer, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ben S. Whaley, U. S. Atty., Charleston, S. C., Edward H. Hickey, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Russell D. Miller, Asst. U. S. Atty., Charleston, S. C., on the brief) for the United States.
t-j 0j ii t 1 a r* Edward Gallagher (Paul A. Cooper, ~ , - . 0 ~ - . rs r ii Columbia, S. C., on the brief), for appellee i-' i,. n ir- t , . , . « 1 Franklin D. Kimbrough, trustee m bank- ^ ruptcy.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
These are appeals by one Edward L. Roberts from orders of the court below denying his motion to dismiss the bankruptcy proceedings of Plowden & Roberts, a partnership, and his motion to be allowed to intervene in the Lucas Act suit of Kimbrough, trustee in bankruptcy of Plowden & Roberts, for the purpose of moving to dismiss that suit. There is no merit in either appeal.
In the bankruptcy case, it appears that, on November 23, 1942, Guy A. Plowden, Richard L. Plowden and Edward L. Roberts, as copartners doing business under the firm name of Plowden & Roberts, jointly and severally petitioned the court for an arrangement with partnership creditors under section 322 of chapter eleven of the Bankruptcy Act. The petition used the Roman numerals II, but it is perfectly clear that this was a mere typographical error and that relief under chapter eleven was what was asked. On February 12, 1943, after Roberts had entered military service, a petition was filed by the two remaining partners and by the attorney for the partnership stating that the petition was being as it was not acceptable to ... , , , . creditors, showing that the partnership . , , , was insolvent and asking an adjudication m , , , . ° .. ,, bankruptcy for the partnership as well as ,, , A . . . for themselves. The two partners signing .... ,. ^ , , . the petition were adjudicated bankrupt on that da, and a was ordered as to the partnership. On March 17, 1943, an order was entered adj'udicating the partner-,. , , ship bankrupt.
There can be 110 question as to the validity of this adjudication, even though Roberts did not personally join in the petition of February 12. The attorney for the partnership had notice and participated in the proceeding; and the adjudication *n bankruptcy was expressly authorized by statute when the arrangement offered J , , , . , , under chapter eleven was withdrawn or j n ttc^a * vk ro\ Tt • abandoned. 11 U.S.C.A. § 776 (2). It is . . , , 5 immaterial that Roberts was not adiudiv . . cated a bankrupt at the same time, for since tlm passage of the Chandler Act there can £>e no question as to the power to adjudicate a partnership bankrupt without adjudieating the partners individually. 11 U.S.C.A. § 23 as amended by the Act of June 22, 1938, c. 575, 52 Stat. 845.
Question is raised as to the appoint-ment °f Kimbrough as trustee; but the record shows that, although he was appointed “temporary trustee” upon the filing °f tbe original petition and that this status was continued upon the adjudication of the Plowdens, he was regularly elected trustee at a ^<^0^ on March 30, 1943, after the adjudication of the partnership, and was duly appointed and gave bond as trustee‘ Even lf this were not so> the lr' regularity of his appointment would furnish no £round for dismissing the proceedings bankruptcy.
As to the Lucas Act suit, the facts are that this suit was instituted by Kimbrough, trustee in bankruptcy of the partnership, in July 1948. On May 10, 1950, order was entered striking a number of the government’s defenses, and on February 22, 1952 a motion by the government for summary judgment was denied. In January 1953 Roberts filed his petition asking to be allowed to intervene in the case for the purpose of moving that it be dismissed. It is perfectly clear that this motion was properly denied. If he had sought to intervene for the purpose of protecting any interest that he might have as a partner iu a recovery by the trustee in bankruptcy for the partnership and its creditors, a different question would be presented; but, even in such case it would be a matter resting in the sound discretion of the District Judge as to whether intervention should be allowed at that stage of the case. See Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Any right of the partnership to maintain a suit under the Lucas Act, 41 U.S.C.A. § 106 note, was vested in its trustee in bankruptcy and there is nothing to indicate that the trustee is not proceeding properly in protection of that right. If there is a recovery of more than enough to pay creditors of the partnership, the rights of the partners will be protected by the bankruptcy court and Roberts may obtain any relief to which he may be entitled with respect thereto by petition at the proper time to that court.
The denial of both motions by the below is affirmed.
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