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:
CENTRAL PAPER CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 11508.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 13, 1952.
Melva M. Graney, Washington, D. C. (Ellis N. Slack, A. F. Prescott, Virginia H. Adams, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Wilbur A. Giffen, Chicago, 111., of counsel, KixMiller, Baar & Morris, Chicago, 111., on the brief, for petitioner.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and Mc-ALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
MILLER, Circuit Judge.
The Tax Court dismissed Petitioner’s application for a redetermination of its excess profits tax liability on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction in the matter, from which ruling the Petitioner has appealed.
The Petitioner, Central Paper Company, Inc., a Michigan 'Corporation, filed claims for refund, relating to' the application of § 722 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S. C.A. § 722, with respect to excess profits taxes for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1943, 1944 and 1945. The Commissioner, by letter of September 6, 1950, rejected the applications. The letter also advised the taxpayer — “Within ninety days * * * from the date of the mailing of this letter, you may file a petition with The Tax Court of the United States, at its principal address, Washington 4, D. C., for a redetermination of your excess profits tax liability under the Internal Revenue Code.” This was in accordance with the provisions of § 732(a) Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 732(a).
The taxpayer prepared such a petition which was mailed at Chicago, Illinois, properly stamped and legibly addressed to “The Tax Court of the United States, Washington 4, D. C.” The wrapper on the package which contained the petition shows a Chicago postmark of 3:30 p. m. on December 1, 1950. The docket of the Tax Court carries the following entry: “1950, December 7. Petition received and filed.” The petition itself was rubber stamped “Filed December 7, 1950.” December 7, 1950, was 92 days after the date of the mailing by the Commissioner of the registered notice of disallowance of the claims on September 6, 1950. The Commissioner moved that the proceeding be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, due to the failure of the petitioner to file its petition with the Tax Court within the 90 days provided by the statute. The Tax Court sustained the motion, without opinion.
In connection with the Tax Court’s consideration of the motion to dismiss, it was stipulated between the parties that the Court should consider as being in evidence the cover of the package which .contained the petition; that there was attached to the notice of disallowance in the above matter a slip of instructions which stated that “appeals should be addressed to'The Tax Court of the United States, Washington 4, D. C.”; that the Court should consider as evidence the statement of the postmaster at Chicago, Illinois, that a record is made of pouches of mail that miss connection with intended trains and also unusual conditions that would interrupt normal operation of trains enroute to destination would be recorded, that there was no record of any such irregularity in the handling of mail at the Chicago postoffice on December 1, 1950, or any interruptions in transportation service that would account for a first-class piece of mail addressed to The Tax Court of the United States, Washington 4, D. C., not reaching the addressee according to schedule, and that a first-class piece of mail addressed to The Tax Court of the United States, Washington 4, D. C., showing postmark in Chicago on December 1, 1950, 3:30 p. m. would in the normal course have arrived at Washington, D. C., at 4:30 p. m. on December 2, 1950; that the Court should consider as evidence the statement of the postmaster at Washington, D. C., that The Tax Court of the United States rents lock box No. 70 at the Benjamin Franklin Station, which is about five inches square, that because of the volume of mail received by The Tax Court their mail is not placed in this box but is. piled on a ledge in no special receptacle until called for by a messenger from The Tax Court, that The Tax Court is not the only box holder at said station for whom mail is retained! in no special receptacle until called for, that on December 2, 1950, there were no unusual conditions or circumstances existing in Washington, D. C. Post Office which would cause delay in the normal handling of mail arriving at Washington on that date, and that a piece of first-class mail addressed to The Tax Court of the United States; Washington, D. C., and arriving in the Washington Post Office at approximately 4:30 p. m. on December 2, 1950 would in normal course have been received by the Box Section of the Benjamin Franklin Station on the same day.
In support of The Tax Court’s ruling, the Commissioner contends that the time limitation for filing the petition is statutory and jurisdictional, and that failure on the part of the taxpayer to file such a petition with the Tax Court within the 90-day period provided is a bar to its consideration. Such is the well established rule, which is not challenged by the taxpayer. Di Prospero v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 176 F.2d 76; Stebbins’ Estate v. Helvering, 74 App.D.C. 21, 121 F.2d 892; Poynor v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 521.
We also agree with the Commissioner’s contention that a failure to file the petition within the specified 90-day period, caused by matters over which the taxpayer has no control, such as delay in the mail service enroute from the taxpayer to the Tax Court, Di Prospero v. Commissioner, supra, failure of airplane mail service to function because of adverse weather conditions, Stebbins’ Estate v. Helvering, supra, or because of other equitable considerations, Edward Barron Estate Co. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 751, 753, does not prevent the rule from being applicable. The taxpayer does not contend otherwise.
But these rules do not prevent the Court from determining as a matter of law, for the purpose of computing the ninety-day period provided, the date on which the notice of disallowance was mailed, Eppler v. Commissioner, 7 Cir., 188 F.2d 95, or the date on which the petition was “filed,” McCord v. Commissioner, 74 App.D.C. 369; 123 F.2d 164; Edward Barron Estate Co. v. Commissioner, supra; Arkansas Motor Coaches v. Commissioner, 8 Cir., 198 F.2d 189, concurring opinion of Judge Johnsen at page 194. The present case does not involve any extension of the ninety-day period, but does involve merely a determination of the date on which the petition was “filed” with The Tax Court. Petitioner contends it was so filed on December 2, 1950, which was within the ninety-day period. The Commissioner contends it was filed on December 7, 1950, which was after the expiration of the ninety-day period.
When mail matter is properly addressed and deposited in the United States mails, with postage duly prepaid thereon, there is a rebuttable presumption of fact that it was received by the addressee in the ordinary course of mail. Dunlop v. United States, 165 U.S. 486, 495, 17 S.Ct. 375, 41 L.Ed. 799; Crude Oil Corp. v. Commissioner, 10 Cir., 161 F.2d 809; Boemer v. United States, 2 Cir., 117 F.2d 387, 389-390; Stern Bros. & Co. v. Burnet, 8 Cir., 51 F.2d 1042, 1045; Haag v. Commissioner, 7 Cir., 59 F.2d 516, 517. This presumption is applicable to the present case, and is strengthened by the testimony of the Postmasters at Chicago and Washington to the effect that there was no interruption to normal mail service between those points on December 1st and 2nd, 1950, and that in the normal course of mail the letter would have arrived at Washington about 4:30 p. m. on December 2, 1950. The presumption is not rebutted by the fact that the letter might possibly have been lost or misplaced by postal employees before delivery to the mail box of The Tax Court, in the absence of any evidence as to when it was placed on the ledge beside the mail box, or when it came into the possession of the messenger from The Tax Court. Hand & Johnson Tug Line v. Canada S. S. Lines, 6 Cir., 281 F. 779. Accordingly, in the present case we accept as a fact that the petition mailed by the taxpayer to The Tax Court was delivered in due course of mail to the ledge beside the lock box of The Tax Court on December 2, 1950.
We are of the opinion that such a delivery by the Post Office constituted delivery to The Tax Court, although not a physical delivery to the Clerk’s Office of The Tax Court. It had made delivery at the place directed by the addressee. At that time the Post Office had no further duty to perform in connection with its obligation to deliver. There is no twilight zone between delivery by the Post Office to the addressee, and receipt, either actual or constructive,, by the addressee.
The Commissioner contends that Rule 5 of the Rules of Practice of The Tax Court, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1111 requires that any document to be filed with the Court, must be filed in the office of the .Clerk of the Court during business hours. By Rule 1, business hours are from 8:45 a. m. to 5:15 p. m. The taxpayer addressed the petition to The Tax Court, using the address given to it by the Commissioner in the letter of disallowance. It was delivered to The Tax Court on December 2, 1950. It was delivered to The Tax Court’s lock box instead of to the Clerk’s office by direction of The Tax Court. Assuming for the purposes, of this case, without so holding, that Rule 5 was not waived by the action of The Tax Court in requiring its mail to be delivered to a lock box instead o!f at tfie Clerk’s Office, McCord v. Commissioner, supra, we are of the opinion that the processing and handling of the petition by Tax Court employees thereafter was no concern of the taxpayer. Failure or unreasonable delay on the part of Tax Court employees to transfer it from the lock box to the ‘Clerk’s Office, or to stamp it as filed after receipt in the Clerk’s Office, is not chargeable to the taxpayer. McCord v. Commissioner, supra; concurring opinion of Judge Johnsen in Arkansas Motor Coaches v. Commissioner, supra, 198 F.2d at page 194; Palcar Real Estate Co. v. Commissioner, 8 Cir, 131 F.2d 210, 213; Milton v. United States, 5 Cir, 105 F.2d 253, 255; Campbell v. Mason, 269 Ky. 128, 133, 106 S.W.2d 100. Treating Rule 5 as applicable, the petition was nevertheless legally filed in the Clerk’s Office at the latest on the next business day after December 2, 1950.
The judgment of The Tax Court is reversed and the case remanded for hearing."

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