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:
Oliver GRISSOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lewis SCOTT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 90-4754.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 28, 1991.
Oliver Grissom, pro se.
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Oliver Grissom, an inmate at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, filed this § 1983 action against his former defense attorney, Lewis Scott. Grissom sought in forma pauperis status. The magistrate determined that Grissom had enough money to pay a partial filing fee of $55 and ordered that he do so to pursue his case. Grissom paid the partial fee.
In his complaint, Grissom alleged that Scott conspired with the State to deny him due process by refusing to provide a copy of the trial record. The magistrate ruled that Grissom’s complaint was insufficient, but allowed him an opportunity to specify the nature of his claim. Grissom filed a statement in response. The magistrate then recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The district court accepted the recommendation and dismissed the complaint. This is Grissom’s appeal. He contends that the district court may not dismiss his suit under section 1915(d) after he has followed the court’s order and paid a partial filing fee. We agree.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a) requires that a summons issue when a complaint is filed. A complaint is considered filed when the filing fee (if one is required) is paid. Herrick v. Collins, 914 F.2d 228, 230 (11th Cir.1990); Bryan v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 455, 457 (7th Cir.1987).
Section 1915(d)’s policy of curbing frivolous or malicious litigation requires no different result when a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis has paid a partial filing fee. That policy is adequately served if the district court, when it initially considers the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, makes its determination that the complaint is frivolous and dismisses the complaint at that time. And if the district court permits the complaint to be filed upon payment ■of a partial fee, the litigant’s choice to pay that amount out of his limited assets indicates that, at the least, the litigant believes in his claim.
Herrick, 914 F.2d at 230.
We therefore adopt the rule that has been adopted by the Eleventh, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits: when a district court allows a litigant to proceed upon the payment of a partial filing fee, the court should treat the complaint in the same manner as a complaint that was not filed in forma pauperis: Id,.; In re Funkhouser, 873 F.2d 1076, 1077 (8th Cir.1989); Bryan, 821 F.2d at 458.
Requiring the issuance of a summons when the court has granted an in forma pauperis motion and required payment of a partial filing fee avoids a conflict between section 1915 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a) yet maintains section 1915(d)’s policy of curbing frivolous litigation by plaintiffs who proceed in forma pauperis. Herrick, 914 F.2d at 230. In this ease, following the amendment of Gris-som’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the district court could have determined whether the suit was frivolous. If it found that the suit was frivolous, it should have dismissed it without requiring the filing of a partial fee.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court’s order to dismiss and remand the matter to the district court so that it can reinstate the action and direct the issuance of a summons to the defendant.
We express no opinion on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
. The rule provides: “Upon the filing of the complaint the clerk shall forthwith issue a summons and deliver the summons to the plaintiff or the plaintiffs attorney, who shall be responsible for prompt service of the summons and a copy of the complaint."

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