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:
Danny KAYE and Sylvia Kaye, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Cy HOWARD, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 16957.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 15, 1961.
Bernard Speisman, New York City, for petitioners.
Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Harry Baum, Gilbert E. Andrews, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before POPE, JERTBERG and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The Tax Court of the United States sustained the disallowance by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of amounts paid by each petitioner, claimed by them to represent payments of interest on indebtedness and hence deductible within the meaning of Section 23 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, in the computation of each petitioner’s net income for the calendar year 1952. The decision of the Tax Court is reported at 33 T.C. 511.
We believe that the cases here involved are controlled by the teachings in Knetsch v. United States, 364 U.S. 361, 81 S.Ct. 132, 5 L.Ed.2d 128, decided November 14, 1960. In Knetsch the Supreme Court examined the transaction between Knetsch and the insurance company in order to determine whether it created an “indebtedness” within the meaning of Section 23(b), or whether, as the trial court found, it was a sham. Following such examination the Supreme Court stated at page 366 of 364 U.S., at page 135 of 81 S.Ct., “For it is patent that there was nothing of substance to be realized by Knetsch from this transaction beyond a tax deduction.” On the whole record before us in these cases, it is likewise patent to us that from the transactions between the petitioners and the brokerage firm with which they dealt that there was nothing of substance to be realized by petitioners beyond tax deductions. Accordingly the decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.
. Internal Revenue Code of 1939:
“Sec. 23. Deductions from Gross Income.
“In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions:
♦ * * * *
“(b) Interest. — All interest paid or accrued within the taxable year on indebtedness. * * 26 U.S.C. 1952 ed., § 23.

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