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:
PRICE IRON & STEEL CO. v. BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
No. 5040.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Argued Nov. 5, 1930.
Decided Dec. 1, 1930.
George E. H. Gardner, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Sewall Key, C. M. Charest, J. Louis Monarch, S. Dee Hanson, and F. E. Mitchell, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
Appellant, an Illinois corporation, appealed from a decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals denying a reduction in its taxes for the year 1920. It appears that during the years 1918, 1919, and 1920, appellant was engaged in the business of buying and selling serap metal, with its principal office in Chicago, 111. Its return for taxes for the year 1920 was on the accrual basis. It reported in that year all the items of income appearing on its books, and deducted all allowable costs and expenses.
During 1918, 1939, and 1920, appellant purchased large quantities of scrap metal from the Director General of Railroads and the New York Central Railroad Company. In 1924, the Director General and the railroad company, through their attorneys, demanded from appellant $80,000 on account of the wrongful classification and grading of scrap metals which appellant had purchased from them. The claim was disputed and a settlement was arrived at in March, 1925, under which appellant paid the amount of $35,-000; and a full discharge of all claims and demands by the railroad company and the Director General was given the appellant.
Appellant then filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue a claim for refund, in which he sought to deduct the $35,000 paid in 1925, as additional cost for goods sold in 1920. This claim was denied by the commissioner on the theory that appellant’s contracts and purchases in 1920 had been fully executed in that year, and that this claim could not attach back to the transactions of that year. Appellant then amended its petition and sought a review before the board of the commissioner’s final determination of the deficiency, requesting that $17,742.12 of the $35,000 be allowed as additional cost of goods sold for 1920, the balance applying to the years prior to that date.
It will be observed that the question here presented is whether or not this amount, first demanded in 1924, and finally settled and paid in 1925, is a proper deduction as a part of appellant’s costs of goods sold in 1920.
The return made by appellant in 1920 on the accrual basis was complete for that year. The amount paid in 1925 could not be considered as an additional purchase price hut as a liability of the petitioner for a wrongful classification of the goods purchased in 1920. The goods purchased in 1920 were fully paid for according to the classification recognized a,t that time. In other words, the 1920 return was a complete statement, from the books of the company, of the cost of the goods under the prevailing classification. This action, therefore, is not to correct any error in the 1920 return. What occurred in 1925 was an additional payment due to a mistake in classification and grading of the serap iron, a liability which occurred in 1925, and not in 1920. It constituted a separate transaction growing out of the dealings of 1920. At most, it constituted an item which, if deductible at all, would belong in the return for 1925, and not for 1920, and eould not, we think, relate back to the 1920 return in such manner as to be regarded as an additional part of the purchase price of the goods for that year.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals 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: 1