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:
In re ITALIAN IMPORTING CO. ROSSI v. ARBER.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
November 10, 1925.
Rehearing Denied December 9, 1925.)
Nos. 3543, 3544.
Bankruptcy <®=>288(l) — Court held without Jurisdiction in summary proceedings to commit defendant for contempt for failure to obey turn-over order.
Bankruptcy court not being in possession or control of moneys paid to. defendant by bankrupt corporation six months before petition in bankruptcy, held, that it had no jurisdiction in summary proceedings to commit him for contempt for failure to turn over such money as required by order, especially where defendant was contending that such money had been paid out for benefit of corporation before bankruptcy.
Petition to Review and Revise and Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Southern District of Illinois.
In the matter of the Italian Importing Company. Petition by Frederick B. Arber, trustee, for turn-over order against Nello Rossi. From an order granting the petition, and an order committing defendant for contempt for failure to obey, defendant petitions to review and revise and appeals.
Reversed.
Clarence W. Heyl, of Peoria, Ill., for petitioner and appellant.
Chester F. Barnett, of Peoria, Ill., for respondent and appellee.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
PAGE, Circuit Judge.
This case is here both by petition to review and revise and by appeal to test the correctness of a turn-over order entered April 12, 1924, and an order entered December 18, 1924, committing Rossi for contempt for failure to turn over the money required by the previous order.
The petition for the turn-over order, filed March 27, 1923, by the trustee of bankrupt, shows that the moneys directed to be turned over were had by Rossi from the bankrupt, on cheeks and otherwise, in July and September, 1921. Other than the presumption, if any, of the continuing possession, it does not appear that Rossi possessed the money later than September of that year.
To the turn-over petition, Rossi filed a motion, asking that he be dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction in the court to enter a summary order. In that motion was a denial that he had possession of any of the property, and an assertion that any funds that had theretofore come to his hands had been paid to creditors prior to the time of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy. After a hearing, the moneys, which in the petition were alleged to have come to the possession of Rossi more than six months before bankruptcy, were made the subject of the turn-over order.
In August, following, a motion was made for a rule upon Rossi to show cause why he should not be attached for contempt for failure to pay over the moneys. To that motion Rossi filed a sworn answer, averring that all of the moneys that came to his hands from the bankrupt had been paid out; that he was a bankrupt, and had no money or property with which to comply with the turn-over order, etc.
As to the items to be turned over, the order found, in part: “Said Nello Rossi has retained possession and control of said proceeds, and has never turned the same, or any part thereof, over to said bankrupt corporation.”
As to another part, the finding is: “That no part thereof has ever been returned to the said bankrupt corporation; that ever since the receipt of said sum of $3,000 the said Nello Rossi has been in possession and control of the same.”
As to another item, the finding is: “That no part thereof has ever been returned to said bankrupt corporation; that said sum of $550 ever since said time has been in the possession and under the control of the said Nello Rossi.”
Other than the presumption of continuing possession, if any, we find no evidence in the record to support any such finding.
The contempt order, after excusing Rossi from the payment of $2,500 of the sum eovered by the turn-over order, finds: “The said Nello Rossi now has in his possession or under Ms control the sum of $7,550.” (Italics ours.) It may he noted, but we deem it unnecessary to the decision of this matter, that the court wholly rejected the testimony of Rossi as unworthy of belief.
Three reasons are presented for reversal: (a) That the proceeding was a summary one, and, under the circumstances, the court had no jurisdiction to so proceed; (b) that the plaintiff’s answer purged him of contempt; (c) that there could be no committal for contempt except upon and after a finding of present ability to pay.
Not within four months, but more than six months, before bankruptcy, the moneys in question were paid by bankrupt to Rossi. The fact that he was president of bankrupt does not seem to have had anything to do with it, unless it may be said that that enabled him to get possession of the money. If Rossi’s testimony, as found by the District Court, was unworthy of belief, then there is no explanation in the record as to why or for what purpose the moneys were paid to him; but the fact remains in the record that he was at all times contending that the moneys received by him had been paid out for the benefit of the corporation before bankruptcy.
We are of opinion that there never was, in the bankruptcy court, any possession or control of the moneys, paid to Rossi six months before the petition in bankruptcy and covered by the turn-over order, and that therefore this ease is controlled by Taubel, etc., Co. v. Fox, 264 U. S. 433, 44 S. Ct. 396, 68 L. Ed. 770, and eases there cited. The court did not have jurisdiction to proceed summarily. Inasmuch as this must dispose of the ease, the consideration of the other questions becomes unimportant.
The order of the District Court is 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: 1