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:
BOOTH v. HAGGARD et al.
No. 14105.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Oct. 17, 1950.
Fred Louis, Jr., Harlan, Iowa (Bennett Cullison, Harlan, Iowa, was with him on the brief), for appellant.
Luke E. Linnan, Algona, Iowa (Joe E. Lynch, Algona, Iowa, was with him on the-■brief), fo-r appellees.
Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, THOMAS, Circuit Judge, and DEWEY, District. Judge.
THOMAS, Circuit Judge, delivered the-opinion of the Court.
This is a suit for an injunction and for damages and profits for the alleged infringement of a copyright under the Act of' July 30, 1947, c. 391, 61 Stat. 652, 17 U.S. C.A. § 101. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Exhibit 1 attached to plaintiff’s petition and made a part thereof, being a copy of' plaintiff’s alleged copyrighted book, shows conclusively that the title page is on the front cover of the book and that no notice-of copyright has been applied on the title-page or on the page immediately following-as required by 17 U.S.C.A. § 20.
Upon the filing of the motion the court announced that it would regard and treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment and that the parties should and could introduce evidence bearing upon the issue-of copyright, which issue was presented by the pleadings. The parties thereupon introduced in evidence a copy of the book: claimed by plaintiff to have been infringed: by defendants.
The court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
The court found that plaintiff received a certificate of registration from the Register of Copyrights of the United States 'for the book involved dated June 22, 1948; that the title of the publication claimed to have been infringed is stated in the complaint to be “1948-49 Kossuth County TAM Service”; and that no other title 'is given in the complaint ; that the only place where the quoted title appears in the book is on the leaf which constitutes the front cover of the book; that the leaf which 'constitutes the front cover of the book is the title page thereof; and that no notice of copyright was given by plaintiff on the title page nor o.n the page immediately following on any copy of the book claimed to 'be infringed.
And the court concluded that the notice of copyright given did not comply with the provisions of 17 U.S.C.A. § 20; and that failure to comply therewith prevents the plaintiff from recovering and is determinative of the case.
The parties agree that the only question for decision is whether the title page of plaintiff’s book is page 3, as claimed by plaintiff, or the front cover, as found by the court and claimed by defendants.
'Title 17 U.S.C.A. § 20 provides: “The notice of copyright shall be applied, in the case of a book or other printed publication, upon its title page or the page immediately following * * *. One notice of copyright in each volume * * * published shall suffice.”’
While a slight variation from the form of notice may not be fatal there must be no substantial deviation. To be legally effective the notice must satisfy the prescriptions of the statute. Advertisers Exchange, Inc., v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 144 F.2d 907; Higgins v. Keuffel, 140 U.S. 428, 434, 11 S.Ct. 731, 35 L.Ed. 470; Mifflin v. R. H. White Company, 190 U.S. 260, 264, 23 S.Ct. 769, 47 L.Ed. 1040.
The plaintiff contends that the court erred: (1) in determining the title of the book; (2) in holding that the only place -where the title appears is on page 1, or the front cover page; (3) that the front cover is the title page; and (4) that no notice of copyright was given by plaintiff on the title page.
The only evidence before the court was a copy of the book itself. The court’s findings are based upon the complaint and the copy of the book in evidence. The book is a comparatively small book bound with a paper cover.
In paragraphs 2 and 5 of the complaint it is averred that the book is entitled: “1948-49 Kossuth County TAM Service.”
On the front cover is printed in bold type:
“1948-1949
“Kossuth County, Iowa
“TAM Service.”
The inside of the front cover contains no printed matter. Page 1 contains a map of Kossuth County, Iowa, only. Page 2 is blank, containing no printed matter.
Page 3 contains a full page of printed text at the top of which appears in lower case type what plaintiff contends is the title, as follows:
“The 1948-1949
“Rural TAM
“For Kossuth County, Iowa.”1
At the bottom of this page is the copyright notice as follows: “Copyright 1948, R. C. Booth Enterprises, Harlan, Iowa.”
In determining whether the front cover page or page 3 of the book is the title page the court of necessity was required to consider the printed texts of those pages and the arrangement of the printed matter thereon and their general appearance. And since there was a substantial difference between them in every respect the court was justified in considering the claim of plaintiff set out in the complaint. Applying these tests, we cannot say that the finding that the front cover page is the title page is erroneous. The finding is supported by substantial evidence and is in accord with the averments of the complaint. In this situation the plaintiff should not be heard to complain. Toksvig v. Bruce Pub. Co., et al., 7 Cir., 181 F.2d 664, 666.
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