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:
DIZE v. MADDRIX.
No. 5240.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Aug. 1, 1944.
Certiorari Granted Nov. 13, 1944.
See 65 S.Ct. 135.
Harry Leeward Katz and Hyman Ginsberg, both of Baltimore, Md. (Ginsberg & Ginsberg, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellant.
Eugene A. Alexander, III, of Baltimore, Md. (Paul Berman, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, DOBIE, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.
DOBIE, Circuit Judge.
Lake Maddrix (hereinafter called Maddrix) brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against L. Elwood Dize, trading as Dize Box Company, (hereinafter called Dize) to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and a reasonable attorney’s fee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter called the Act), 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. The District Court, sitting without a jury, entered judgment in favor of Maddrix and against Dize for the sum of $1,052.10, plus an attorney’s fee of $75. Dize has duly appealed to us.
Dize contends that he was not engaged in the production of goods for shipment in interstate commerce so as to bring him within the purview of the Act. True it is that the boxes and barrels made by Dize were sold locally to packers and shippers of crabmeat and oysters. But, as Dize well knew, a great majority of the boxes and barrels made and sold by him were used by these packers and shippers for shipments in interstate commerce. This case is practically on all fours with Enterprise Box Co. v. Fleming, 5 Cir., 125 F.2d 897, certiorari denied Enterprise Box Co. v. Holland, 316 U.S. 704, 62 S.Ct. 1312, 86 L.Ed. 1772. There, too, the boxes were made and sold locally to manufacturers of cigars in Florida, but, again, the vast majority of boxes, to the knowledge of the boxmaker, were used for the shipment of cigars in interstate commerce. We think it is unnecessary to add to the able opinion of Circuit Judge Holmes in that case, holding that the maker of the cigar boxes was subject to the Act.
Nor are we impressed by the contention of Dize that he falls within the exemption set out in § 213(a) (5) of the Act. This section excludes those engaged in catching, taking, harvesting, etc., of fish, sponges or other forms of animal and vegetable life, including the loading or packing of these products for shipment. Clearly Dize was engaged in no such endeavors. As well might we exempt a manufacturer of rubber boots shipped in interstate commerce to fishermen.
Dize tendered to Maddrix the sum of $500, which Maddrix accepted and Maddrix signed a comprehensive release, covering all of his claims against Dize. The District Judge properly found that both parties knew that more than $500 was due. Accordingly, it is clear that such a release is not a legitimate defense to the proper claim of Maddrix under the Act. Guess v. Montague, 4 Cir., 140 F.2d 500. Nor does the subsequent tender by Dize to Maddrix of the sum claimed by Maddrix defeat the claim of Maddrix for liquidated damages under the Act, when Maddrix, after he had made a demand on Dize for liquidated damages, flatly refused this tender.
Dize attempts to make much of the confused bookkeeping as to the number of hours actually worked by Maddrix, and the fact that Maddrix was Dize’s bookkeeper. There was, however, substantial evidence to support the finding of the District Judge as to the number of hours worked by Maddrix, and the amount due to him under the Act, and certainly this finding is not clearly erroneous. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. It is accordingly binding on us.
We agree with the District Judge that the whole conduct of Maddrix in the premises rather shocks our sense of fair play. But under the Act, and under our decision m Guess v. Montague, supra, a judgment in favor of Maddrix seems unavoidable. There is nothing that we can do but enforce the law as Congress has written it.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
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