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:
TRADERS’ TRUST CO. v. WAYNE. In re GEORGE R. JONES & CO., Inc.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 6, 1926.)
No. 4732.
Mortgages <S=»114 — Trust deed held Intended to secure indebtedness only to amount of $5,000.
Corporation’s trust deed, executed pursuant to resolution of board of directors, authorizing officers to establish a line of credit in the sum of $5,000, and to execute notes and renewal notes not to exceed that sum, held intended only to secure an indebtedness not to exceed $5,000, and creditor is not entitled to preferred claim in excess of that amount.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia; Samuel H. Sibley, Judge.
In the matter of the bankruptcy of Geo. R. Jones & Co., Inc. From a judgment sustaining the objection of Clarence Wayne, trustee, to the secured claim of the Traders’ Trust Company in excess of $5,000, said Traders’ Trust Company appeals.
Affirmed.
Walter McElreath and Thomas Howell Scott, both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Leonard Haas, of Atlanta, Ga. (Underwood & Haas, of Atlanta, Ga., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
This is an ap-' peal from a judgment disallowing in part a claim of appellant as a secured debt against the estate of George R. Jones & Co., Inc., bankrupt. It appears that in May, 3923, the George R. Jones Company was indebted to the Decatur Bank & Trust Company in the sum of $5,000, represented by a note, and executed a deed of trust covering certain land to secure it. The material part of the deed is as follows:
“This deed is made to secure the payment of a debt, pursuant to the laws of Georgia in such ease made and provided, or any renewal of said debt, or any part thereof, which debt is evidenced by a certain promissory note bearing even date herewith for the sum of five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars, signed by Geo. R. Jones Company, Ine., bearing interest from date at the rate of eight (8%) per cent, per annum, and providing for the payment of ten (10) per cent, as attorney’s fees. This deed is intended, not only to secure the above-described note, but any other indebtedness that may be now or hereafter owing by the said Geo. R. Jones Company, Ine., to said bank, or any renewal of such indebtedness; the purpose and object of this deed being to secure a line of credit by said Geo. R. Jones Company, Inc., from said bank, so long as the same may be mutually agreeable to the parties hereto. This deed is executed pursuant to the following resolution passed by the directors of said Geo. R. Jones Company, Inc., to wit:
“ ‘Resolution.
“ ‘Resolved, That the officers of this corporation, to wit, George R. Jones Company, Ine., be and they are hereby authorized to arrange with the Decatur Bank & Trust Company for a line of credit from said bank to this corporation in the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), and to execute from time to time such notes as may be necessary to secure such hank for said sum or any part thereof, and to renew any such note or notes, and from time to time to sign new notes for additional sums advanced by said bank for this corporation, not exceeding at any time five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), ^nd said officers are also authorized to convey to said bank as security for any note or notes that may be executed by this corporation pursuant to this resolution, the following described land, to wit.’ ”
The George R. Jones .Company was adjudicated bankrupt in September, 1925. Prior to that time the Decatur .Bank & Trust Company had transferred certain > notes charged to the bankrupt, amounting to over $15,000, and its rights under the trust deed, to appellant, and that company filed a proof of debt as a secured claim to the amount of $14,772.48. The trastee objected to the allowance of the claim as secured in any amount exceeding $5,000, and the referee entered an order maintaining the contention of the trustee, which \ order was in turn approved, by the District Court. Appellant now contends that the-deed was intended to secure any indebtedness up to $10,000.
The only question presented for review is the construction of the deed of trust by the court below. We agree with the referee and the District Court in their construction of the deed of trust. Considering the provisions above quoted, including the resolution óf the company, it seems clear that it was the intention of the grantor to secure a line of credit at all times of $5,000, but not to secure any indebtedness exceeding that amount. The testimony of Jones, president, and Andrews, treasurer,. of the bankrupt, sustains this construction. In this connection it may be noted that the proof of debt filed by appellants shows only one note of $5,000 made by the Jones Company to the Decatur Bank & Trust Company. The other notes going to make up the amount claimed are either notes to the Jones Company, indorsed and discounted by it with the bank, or notes of the Jones Company to third persons, indorsed and discounted by them. It would be stretching the provisions of the deed of trust too far to say that it was the intention of the parties, when it was executed, that notes such as these were intended to be secured by it.
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