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:
WILD WING LODGE v. BLACKLIDGE, Collector of Internal Revenue.
No. 4753.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
June 14, 1932.
Roger Sherman, Henry F. Tenney, Henry G. Miller, and John H. McBride, all of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
George E. Q. Johnson, U. S. Atty., and John Potts Barnes, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.
ALSCHULER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant unsuccessfully brought suit against the collector of internal revenue to recover taxes alleged to have been unlawfully collected.
Appellant is an Illinois corporation, organized in 1914 to carry on a hunting club. It owns upwards of 800 acres of land in Mason county, III., used as a hunting- preserve. Its membership is limited to seventeen. Its property at the time in question was worth about $135,000.
Article X of its by-laws provides: “Transfers of Membership. Any person •wishing to transfer his membership shall first tender the same to the Club, and should the Club decline to purchase, he may transfer the same to any person who shall be elected to membership, as provided in Article XI of these By-Laws, and such person shall thereupon, on paying into the Treasury the sum of One Hundred Dollars, be entitled to all the privileges of the Club. But in eases where the transferee so elected to membership is the father or son of the transferer no transfer fee shall be paid.”
During the tax year three memberships were sold, at approximately $6,000’ each, to persons who were accepted as members, and who also paid $100 each to the club as a membership transfer fee. The price of the membership was in each case paid to the seller, or, if deceased, to his personal representatives, and no part of it' was' received by the club. On the assumption that the price paid was an initiation fee within the meaning of the statute, the statutory ten per cent, tax thereon was levied, and was paid by the club, which brought this suit for its refund.
Section,, 413(a) of the Revenue Act of 1928 (45 Stat. 864, 26 USCA § 872) so far as here material, is:
“(a) Section 501 of the Revenue Act of 1926 is amended to read as follows:
“See. 501. ‘(a) There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid a tax equivalent to 10 per centum of any amount paid—
“ ‘(1) As dues or membership fees to any social, athletic, or sporting club or organization, if the dues or fees of an active resident annual member are in excess of $25 per year; or ■ -
“ '(2) As initiation fees to such a club or organization, if such fees amount to more than $10, or if the dues or membership fees, not including initiation fees, of an active resident, annual member are in excess of $25 per year. * * *
“ ‘(d) As used in this section, the term “dues” includes any assessment irrespective of the purpose for which made; and the term “initiation fees,” includes any payment, contribution, or loan required as a condition precedent to membership, whether or not- any such payment, contribution, or loan is evidenced by a certificate of interest or indebtedness or share of stock, and irrespective of the person or organization to whom paid, contributed, or loaned.’ ”
Appellant contends that the price paid' represents a transaction wholly between the purchaser and the seller of the membership, wherein the club had no beneficial part or interest, and it is in no sense an initiation ■fee. It further contends that such a tax would in any event be void as a direct tax on property, not apportioned as required by the Federal Constitution, and therefore in contravention of it.
The tax is not levied upon the club, but upon the individual who acquires membership therein. If the club had exercised its privilege of purchasing the memberships and had then sold them to these members, having admitted them to membership, it is scarcely questioned that the amount paid, be it more or less than the price which the club paid therefor, would be taxable under the statute to the new member. The fact that the club did not exercise its prior right of purchase, but permitted the parties to make their own bargains, does not, in our judgment, alter the situation. The tax is upon the person who becomes a member of the organization, and is measured by what he pays to acquire it.
This is not a purchase and a, sale in tho ordinary sense. The enjoyment of the club’s privileges was as dejiendent upon the ¡íc-quisition of the membership of a former member ns it was upon the purchaser’s (‘lection to membership in tho club, and the payment of the transfer fee. All were equally necessary to invest the new member with the club privileges. The purchase of the membership was not an investment as commonly understood. It was but an incident to the main desideratum - — membership in the club. One purchasing the interest of a member, even if failing of election to the club, acquired no such property right as would enable him to have his interest in the club property segi egated and set apart to him so long as the club has existence, lie might transfer the interest to another who might prove acceptable for membeiship; but, after all is said and done, it was membership in the club and the right to, participation in its privileges that induced the purchase, and in our judgment this was just such a transaction as subsection (d) was designed to Teach and subject to the ten per cent. tax.
The more recent adoption of (d), after it was found in practice that through various devices tho lax was a,voided, makes it plain to us that when Congress said “the term ‘initiation fees,’ includes any payment, contribution, or loan required as a condition precedent to membership-, whether or not any such payment, contribution, or loan is evidenced by a certificate of interest or indebtedness or share of stock, and irrespective of the person or organization to- whom paid, contributed, 03' loaned,” it intended to cover such cases as this, where the acquirement of a member’s interest is “a condition precedent to membership.”
In two similar cases this has been distinctly so held. Munn v. Bowers, 47 F.(2d) 204 (C. C. A. 2), certiorari deuied 283 U. S. 845, 51 S. Ct. 492, 75 L. Ed. 1454; Knoll-wood Club v. United States (Ct. Cl.) 48 F. (2d) 971. The contention of the unconstitutional ity of the act is sufficiently discussed and answered in tho Munn v. Bovvers Case, and we need present no further discussion thereon.
The judgment is 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: 0