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:
SEVIER TERRACE REALTY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 15409.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 1964.
George D. Webster, Washington, D. C. (Davies, Rich berg, Tydings, Landa & Duff, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Robert A. Bernstein, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, L. W. Post, Stephen B. Wolfberg, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This ease involved questions concerning the taxpayer’s basis of 303 acres of land known as Mount Ida Farm and located partly within and partly without the corporate limits of Kingsport, Tennessee. A further issue was presented as to whether the taxpayer in computing its income tax may deduct, as an ordinary and necessary business expense, the fair market value of 12 lots transferred to a social and recreation center to be used only by owners or residents in the taxpayer’s subdivision rather than handling it as a capital expenditure allocable to the basis of its unsold lots.
The parties agreed that taxpayer’s basis for the 303 acres was the fair market value of an undivided one-half interest in the land on March 11, 1922 and the fair market value of the other one-half on March 1, 1913.
The evidence as to values offered in the Tax Court by the taxpayer and the Government was sharply in conflict. It was carefully considered by Judge Raum of that court in a well written opinion. He determined the values on the respective dates somewhere between the values testified to by the taxpayer’s experts and the Government’s experts. He was of the view that the values testified to by the taxpayer’s experts were unrealistic and he did not credit them. The values determined by the Tax Court were within the range of the testimony of the expert witnesses. The court further took into account values placed on the land in earlier tax returns filed by predecessors in interest of the taxpayer which we think was proper. Robertson v. Routzahn, 75 F.2d 537 (C.A. 6); Grill v. United States, 303 F.2d 922 (Ct.Cl.); Campagna v. United States, 290 F.2d 682 (C.A. 2); Marsack’s Estate v. Commissioner, 288 F.2d 533 (C.A. 7). See also Interstate Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. RKO Teleradio Pictures, Inc., 318 F.2d 73, 78 (C.A. 6), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 945, 84 S.Ct. 352.
In our opinion, the decision of the Tax Court with respect to the values of the land was supported by substantial evidence and is not clearly erroneous. We find nothing prejudicial to taxpayer in the Tax Court’s allocation of the basis.
We are also of the view that the value of the 12 lots contributed by taxpayer for a recreation center should be treated as a capital expenditure allocable to the basis of its unsold lots and is not deductible as a business expense. Country Club Estates, Inc. v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 1283.
The decision of the Tax Court is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Raum reported in T.C. Memo. 1962 — 242.

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