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:
In the Matter of Robert W. HOWAT, Bankrupt.
No. 12849.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
May 26,1960.
Philip Conley, Chicago, 111., for appellant.
Alex H. Rosenbaum, Lester E. Williams, Chicago, 111., for appellee.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, ENOCH, Circuit Judge, and PLATT, District Judge.
PLATT, District Judge.
The referee in bankruptcy granted the bankrupt his discharge in the face of the objections by a creditor, Dana Campbell, who alleged that the bankrupt made two false financial statements, one to General Finance Company and the other to Household Finance Corporation, to obtain a loan from each. The objector filed a petition for review and the referee in bankruptcy certified the petition for review to the district court in accordance with § 39, sub. a(8) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 67, sub. a(8). The district court entered an order affirming the order of discharge without hearing further evidence. The objecting creditor has appealed from this order and maintains that the referee’s findings were not supported by the evidence.
The pertinent statute, section 14, sub. c of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c provides in part as follows:
“The court shall grant the discharge unless satisfied that the bankrupt has * * * (3) obtained money or property on credit, or obtained an extension or renewal of credit, by making * * * a materially false statement in writing respecting his financial condition; * * *»
This section has been interpreted by this court to mean that “if a bankrupt obtains credit based on a materially false statement in writing respecting his financial condition, knowingly made with intent to deceive, that statement being relied upon by the person extending the credit, then upon proper objection by the creditor the court may refuse to grant a discharge * * Schweizer v. City Loan Co., 7 Cir., 1959, 271 F.2d 95, 97.
The referee in bankruptcy found from all the evidence in substance:
(1) That the bankrupt failed to disclose all of his debts correctly in the two financial statements;
(2) That the bankrupt did not wilfully intend to defraud the loan companies by these statements; and
(3) That neither of the loan companies relied upon the false statement given to them by the bankrupt.
The district court was bound by General Order of Bankruptcy 47, 11 U.S. C.A. following section 53, which requires the district judge to accept the referee's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. This court must also accept the findings of the referee, affirmed by the district judge, unless the findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A. In re Garden City Brewery, 7 Cir., 1953, 208 F.2d 377; Porterfield v. Gerstel, 5 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 634. Thus the issue presented is whether the referee’s findings are clearly erroneous.
To determine this issue the evidence must be examined. The two financial statements to the loan companies were offered and accepted in evidence. The bankrupt testified that he was an advertising copywriter, kept no record of his liabilities, and was unable to recall all of his debts; that he had obtained previous loans from both companies; that he discussed his financial problems with an agent of the company and disclosed other debts not mentioned in the statements; that he did not list the indebtedness to Dana Campbell, the objecting creditor, because he was of the opinion that he was not indebted to her; that he did not intend to defraud the loan companies; that he did not intentionally make a false statement; and that he made payments on these loans up to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy; that he did list the indebtedness to Household Finance Corporation on the statement to General Finance Company, and also listed the indebtedness to General Finance Company on the statement to Household Finance Corporation.
Mr. Alvin W. Olson, General Manager of General Finance Company, testified in part, that when he made the loan in question to the bankrupt, he considered the payment of prior loans by the bankrupt, and the amount of his salary.
There was other testimony which conflicted with the foregoing evidence. Since the referee heard and saw the witnesses, he was in a position to determine the issues of fact. It was his duty to make findings of fact. General Order of Bankruptcy 47, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53. From the evidence set forth the referee was justified in finding:
(1) That the bankrupt did not wilfully make the statements to the loan companies, to obtain credit, with the intent to deceive them; and
(2) That the loan companies did not rely on these statements when they granted the bankrupt the loans.
Findings of the referee in bankruptcy are not clearly erroneous. For the reasons stated the order granting the discharge 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