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:
W. J. PERRYMAN & COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. PENN MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 20308.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 13, 1963.
Marion R. Shepard, Jacksonville, Fla., Marshall H. Fitzpatrick, Birmingham, Ala. (Mead, Norman & Fitzpatrick, Birmingham, Ala., Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, Fla., of counsel), for appellant.
William M. Howell, Charles Cook Howell, Jacksonville, Fla. (Howell, Kirby, Montgomery & Sands, Jacksonville, Fla., of counsel), for appellee.
Before RIYES and JONES, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, Jr., District Judge.
JONES, Circuit Judge.
The appellant, W. J. Perryman & Company, Inc., is an Alabama corporation. On July 1,1947, it entered into a contract with the appellee, Penn Mutual Fire Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, appointing the appellant as general agent of the appellee in the State of Alabama. By an amendment to the contract the appellant also became the appellee’s general agent in the State of Florida. The contract terminated on October 12, 1957. On November 22, 1957, the appellant brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, there identified as Civil Action No. 8895, against the appellee. In its complaint in that action the appellant asserted that the appellee had breached the contract and that, in violation of the contract, the appellee had sought to appropriate to itself the good will and business of the appellant by the solicitation of insurance renewals. It was alleged that:
“By these unlawful acts in violation of the defendant’s [appellee] contractual obligation to the plaintiff [appellant] as above set forth, and by the continuation of such acts in the future, the defendant has injured and damaged the plaintiff in a large sum of money, to-wit, $100,-000.00. * * *”
The appellant, by the prayer of its complaint in the Alabama suit, sought to enjoin the solicitation of renewals or the making of renewals.
The claims asserted in the Alabama litigation were compromised, settled and released. The compromise was effected by a formal instrument of release. It recited that the averments of the then pending action were incorporated in and made a part of the release by reference. Payment by the appellee to the appellant of $55,000.00 was acknowledged “by way of compromise of the claims and demands made against it in said Civil Action No. 8895.” The operative part of the release is in the following terms:
“Now, Therefore, In Consideration of the Premises and of the payment to Undersigned of the sum of Fifty Five Thousand ($55,000.00) Dollars, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Undersigned does hereby remise, release and forever discharge Penn Mutual Fire Insurance Company, a corporation, its officers, servants, agents, employees, successors and assigns of and from all and all manner of actions, causes of action, suits, proceedings, debts, dues, contracts, damages, claims and demands whatsoever in law, equity or civil action, which against the said Penn Mutual Fire Insurance Company, a corporation, its officers, servants, agents, employees, successors or assigns the Undersigned ever had, now has, or which it and its successors and assigns hereafter can, shall or may have for or by reason of the asserted breach by Penn Mutual Fire Insurance Company of the said contract of, to-wit: July 1, 1947, and said contract as amended, and by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever averred in said Civil Action No. 8895, or which could have been litigated in said Civil Action No. 8895. It is understood and agreed between Undersigned and Penn Mutual Fire Insurance Company that Undersigned will cause said Civil Action No. 8895 to be dismissed with prejudice at the cost of Penn Mutual Fire Insurance Company.”
It was recited that the payment was in satisfaction of the appellant’s claim for compensatory damages only and not for punitive damages. It was agreed that the payment was not to be construed as an admission of liability by the appellee. The Alabama suit was dismissed with prejudice.
The action which gave rise to this appeal was brought by the appellant against the appellee in a Florida State court in 1961. It was removed, by reason of diversity of citizenship, to the United States District Court for the Southern, now Middle, District of Florida. The complaint set forth the agency contract and its termination, the Alabama action, the settlement and the release. It alleged continued acts by the appellee to obtain renewals of insurance policies originally procured by the appellant during the period of the agency, which conduct, the appellant averred, was the taking of its property. The district court granted the motion of the appellee for a summary judgment and this appeal is from the summary judgment so entered.
Although the claim is made that recovery is sought for a wrongful taking of property, the right asserted is dependent upon the contract of the parties. A custom is alleged that a general agency contract in the insurance business gives rise to a property right in the good will of the renewals of the policies issued by or through the general agent; but whatever rights of such nature may have arisen, they arose from and are dependent upon the contract which the parties made.
There was a controversy between the parties which was before a court in the 1957 litigation in Alabama. That controversy was compromised and settled, and we look to the claim there asserted to ascertain the nature and extent of the controversy. We see that the appellant sought, not only damages for the past conduct of the appellee but for “the continuation of such acts in the future.” We look to the release to ascertain the nature and extent of the settlement. Miles v. Barrett, 223 Ala. 293, 134 So. 661. In addition to the general terms of release, the appellant released all claims which it had or which it thereafter could have by reason of the asserted breach, and by reason of any matter, cause or thing averred in Civil Action 8895.
The law favors and encourages compromises. Steenhuis v. Holland, 217 Ala. 105, 115 So. 2; J. Kahn & Co. v. Clark, 5th Cir. 1949, 178 F.2d 111. Future damages may be released if such is the intent of the parties. Nahtel Corporation v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 2nd Cir. 1944, 141 F.2d 1. It was the intent to release the claim and demand which the appellant had asserted in its Alabama suit, including the damages for future acts of the appellee. It seems elementary that the release of the claims asserted in a suit would be a complete bar to the subsequent assertion of such claims. We think that if the suit had proceeded to judgment for the appellant, that judgment would have been a bar to the claim asserted in this cause. The compromise, settlement and release are as conclusive as a judgment would have been if the claim had been litigated rather than compromised and settled. J. Kahn & Co. v. Clark, supra. The dismissal with prejudice adds res judicata to the release as barring recovery by the appellant. The summary judgment was proper.
Deciding the appeal as we do, we find it unnecessary to consider the instrument which was prepared as an amendment to the agency contract.
The judgment of the district court 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