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:
John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant, Appellant, v. Oscar MENENDEZ, Plaintiff, Appellee.
No. 6761.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
March 2, 1967.
Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept, of Justice, with whom John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Francisco A. Gil, Jr., U. S. Atty., and William Kanter, Atty., Dept, of Justice, were on brief, for appellant.
Harvey B. Nachman, San Juan, P. R., with whom Nachman & Feldstein, San Juan, P. R., was on brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge,- MARIS and McENTEE, Circuit Judges.
By designation
ALDRICH, Chief Judge.
The single issue in this case is whether it was appropriate for the district court, as distinguished from the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, to determine and award plaintiff’s counsel a fee (“out of, and not in addition to * * * the benefits payable”) by virtue of section 206(b) (1) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (1). No factual questions are involved. Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits and prosecuted it, unsuccessfully, pro se, through the Appeals Council. Thereafter he employed counsel, who filed a petition for review in the district court. The Secretary responded by moving for a remand. New administrative hearings were held, at which plaintiff’s counsel continued to represent him. Eventually plaintiff recovered, administratively, the full amount of the benefits claimed. Counsel then moved in the district court for an allowance of fees for the representation before the agency and his motion was allowed. The Secretary appeals.
Section 206(b) (1) was enacted in its present form in 1965, Pub.L. 89-97, 79 Stat. 403. Prior thereto it was held that under section 205(g), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the district court had implied power to award a fee. Sparks v. Celebreeze, 5 Cir., 1965, 342 F.2d 286. However, that case involved a fee for extensive court representation and did not raise the question whether the court’s allowance might include payment for services at the agency level. On this we find section 206(b) clear and explicit.
“(b) (1) Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation * *
“(2) Any attorney who charges, demands, receives, or collects for services rendered in connection with proceedings before a court to which paragraph (1) of this subsection is applicable any amount in excess of that allowed by the court thereunder shall be guilty of a misdemeanor * * (Ital. suppl.)
In our opinion this section codifies the implication which the court in Sparks found in section 205(g) and at the same time recognizes, expressly, the principle that a court is the appropriate one to determine the value of the services rendered before it, and by implication, that it is not for the court to determine the value of services rendered elsewhere.
For the services performed before the agency, the Secretary may award appropriate counsel fees. 42 U.S.C. § 406(a); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.975-404.977a (1966). Section 206(b) (1) does not expressly revoke this provision. We see no point in considering it revoked pro tanto by implication. On the contrary, we see every reason for continuing the principle that the agency before whom services were rendered should be the one to determine their value. To the extent that Robinson v. Celebrezze, W.D. S.C., 1965, 248 F.Supp. 149, holds to the contrary, we do not accept it.
There is nothing singular in the fact that counsel who appears in two forums should apply to each for the aliquot part of his total fee. That is common practice where counsel obtains in a district court, and in an appellate court, a separate award for his services before each.
The judgment of the district court is vacated. Counsel may, if so minded, apply to that court for an allowance for services in drafting and filing the complaint. For compensation for the balance of his services counsel must make application to the Secretary.
. Concededly, counsel’s claim included services in connection with the filing of the complaint in the district court, but eoncededly, also, the bulk of the work was done before the agency. The parties agree that the matter before ús is the propriety of the court award for services rendered at the agency level.
. We find no basis for counsel’s statement to the district court, and seemingly accepted by it, that all an attorney can get from the Secretary is $50 a hearing. See Chernock v. Gardner, 3 Cir., 1966, 360 F.2d 257.

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