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:
C. E. GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bruce CLARK and Murrell Denton, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15454.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
May 22, 1964.
Robert C. Carter, Glasgow, Ky. (Carroll M. Redford, Glasgow, Ky., on the brief), for appellant.
Robert D. Simmons, Bowling Green, Ky. (Robert M. Coleman, Coleman, Harlin & Orendorf, Bowling Green, Ky., Morris Butler, Greensburg, Ky., on the brief), for appellees.
Before CECIL, O’SULLIVAN and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.
CECIL, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff-appellant brought this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to rescind the sale of two oil and gas leases. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the sale of these leases constituted a sale of a security under the Securities Act of 1933 (Sections 77b, 77e and 77l(1), Title 15, U. S.C.), and as such was required to be registered. Since there was no registration, the appellant claims that the transaction may be rescinded within one year. (Section 77m, Title 15, U.S.C.) The district judge held that it was not a security within the meaning of the Act. We will refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendants, as they were in the trial court.
On November 24, 1959, the defendants sold and assigned to the plaintiff two oil leases of which they were the joint owners. One lease included forty-two acres of land, more or less, upon which there were twenty-one operating wells. The other lease was for approximately twenty acres of land upon which there were eight operating wells. The assignment and transfer included all of the equipment and personal property on the leased land used in connection with the operation of the wells. The consideration was the payment of $72,500 in cash and the reservation to the defendants of an oil payment in the sum of $52,500 to be paid out of 14 of the working interest in the two leases.
Section 77b(1), Title 15, U.S.C., so far as is applicable to this case, defines a security as “any * * * fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, * * * ” Counsel for the plaintiff say that, as applicable here, there are two elements necessary to render a transfer of oil and gas rights a security:
“1. There must be a splitting of the interest owned by the seller, which is,
“2. Connected with, or for the purpose of, a sale thereof.”
In support of this test, counsel claim that the defendants split their ownership by reserving to themselves one quarter of the working interest until $52,500 had been paid to them. Counsel concede that the transfer of all of one’s interest in and to a specific oil and gas lease is not a security within the meaning of the Act. Roe v. United States, 287 F.2d 435, 437, C.A. 5, cert. den., 368 U.S. 824, 82 S.Ct. 43, 7 L.Ed.2d 29, Woodward v. Wright, 266 F.2d 108, C.A. 10.
Counsel for the plaintiff say that the Woodward case, supra, is controlling in the case now before us. There is a vital distinction in the facts between the Woodward case and our case. There the ultimate effect of the conveyance was a splitting of the entire interest assigned. A % interest was sold for the sum of $40,000, $25,000 to be paid in cash and the balance within two years, secured by a mortgage on the property. The contract specifically provided that the sellers would deliver to the escrow agent assignments in the lease “to such parties and in such fractions as may be named by the parties of the second part.” Assignments for various fractional interests in the oil and gas lease were, in fact, issued to at least seven participants.
We have no such situation in this case. The sale was to the plaintiff with no resale or assignment of any part of his interest either actually made or contemplated. The written instrument of assignment by which the leases in question were sold and transferred to the plaintiff by the defendants purports to and does convey all of the right, title and interest of the defendants in the leases to the plaintiff. The defendants under the terms of sale had no control, no right of entry and no voice in the operation. The oil payment to be paid out of of the working interest in the two leases was a part of the consideration for the sale. We agree with the trial judge that the transaction in question here cannot be distinguished from a sale subject to a vendor’s lien to secure the payment of a deferred consideration.
We conclude that the sale of the oil leases herein did not constitute the sale of a security within the meaning of the Securities Act.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
. The transfer was subject to a %2 overriding royalty interest of Walter Chenault in the 42-acre lease. The defendants’ interest was also subject to this royalty interest.

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