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:
KERNS et al. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6573.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.,
Argued April 13, 1953.
Decided May 28, 1953.
William T. Joyner, Jr., Raleigh, N. C. (W. T. Joyner, Raleigh, N. C., on brief), for appellants.
Alonzo W. Watson, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen. (H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Robert N. Anderson and Joseph F. Goetten, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and Thomas A. Uzzell, Jr., U. S. Atty., Asheville, N. C., on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SO-PER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PARKER, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal in an action instituted in the court below to recover transportation taxes assessed against and collected from taxpayers under 26 U.S.C. § 3475. Taxpayers contended that they were not engaged in transportation within the meaning of that section but merely rented trucks to a stone company which used them in connection with operations within its quarry. The District Judge held adversely to this contention and from judgment in favor of the United States, the taxpayers have appealed.
The statute under which the tax was assessed is as follows:
“(a) Tax. There shall be imposed upon the amount paid within or without the United States for the transportation of property by rail, motor vehicle, water, or air from one point in the United States to another, a tax equal to 3 per centum of the amount so paid, except that, in the case of coal, the rate of tax shall be 4 cents per short ton. Such tax shall apply only to amounts paid to a person engaged in the business of transporting property for hire, including amounts paid to a freight forwarder, express company, or similar person, but not including amounts paid by a freight forwarder, express company, or similar person for transportation with respect to which a tax has previously been paid under this section. In the case of property transported from a point without the United States to a point within the United States the tax shall apply to the amount
paid within the United States for that part of the transportation which takes place within the United States. The tax on the transportation of coal shall not apply to the transportation of coal with respect to which there has been a previous taxable transportation.”
The pertinent portion of section 1431 of Treasury Regulations 113, the regulation applicable under the statute, is as -follows:
“ * * * The term ‘person engaged in the business of transporting property for hire’ includes a common carrier, contract carrier, local moving or dray-age concern, freight forwarder, express company, or other person transporting property for hire wholly or in part by rail, motor vehicle, water, or air.
* * * * * *
“ * * * The term ‘transportation’ as used herein means the movement of property by a person engaged in the business of transporting property for hire, including interstate, intrastate, and intracity or other local movements, as well as towing, ferrying, switching, etc. In general, it includes accessorial services furnished in connection with a transportation movement, such as loading, unloading, blocking and staking, elevation, transfer in transit, ventilation, refrigeration, icing, storage, demurrage, lighterage, trimming' of cargo in vessels, wharfage, handling, feeding and watering live stock, and similar services and facilities.”
The facts are that taxpayers are the owners of five dump trucks, which, because of their -width and weight, are not adaptable to ordinary transportation on highways and are not allowed to travel on the highways of North Carolina without a special permit. These trucks are operated by drivers employed and paid by taxpayers and are rented with the drivers by the hour to the Superior Stone Company, which operates a large stone quarry near Kings Mountain, North Carolina. The use made of the trucks is as follows: After stone is blasted down by the use of dynamite from the face of the quarry pit, it is scooped up by a steam shovel and loaded in the trucks and is carried by them a distance of from 500 feet to Yio of a mile to the primary rock crusher, where it is broken up into smaller pieces and transported by conveyor belts to a series of other rock crushers by which it is reduced to the desired merchantable size. Some of the crushed rock is loaded directly into railroad cars or into trucks for transportation to customers and is not here involved. The remainder is loaded into the taxpayers’ dump trucks and carried to rock piles in the quarry, a distance of from 500 feet to Yio of a mile from the crushers, to await future transportation.
The five dump trucks supplied by taxpayers are the only means used by the stone company in moving to the primary stone crusher the stone which has been blasted from the face of the pit and in moving the crushed stone from the final crusher to the stock piles within the quarry. While the drivers of the trucks are paid by taxpayers, they are subject to the absolute control and direction of the stone company as to every detail of the work performed, and a fixed hourly rental is paid for the use of the trucks and drivers without regard to the work done or the tonnage hauled. Taxpayers carry workmen’s compensation and liability insurance on the trucks and make social security deductions from the wages of the drivers.
On these facts we think it clear that the position of taxpayers is correct and that they are merely renting to the stone com- - pany trucks which are used on the premises of the latter in its quarrying operations and are not engaged in transportation within the meaning of the statute. - The movement' of stone to and from the crushers is a part of the quarrying and stone crushing in which the stone company is engaged; and the movement does not lose the character of the operation of which it is a part merely because the company rents trucks with drivers from the taxpayers for the purpose of carrying it on. As the company has the exclusive power of directing the work in which the trucks are engaged, the drivers are to be deemed its servants in the performance of the work. Malisfski v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, 4 Cir., 135 F.2d 910, 912-913; H. E. Wolfe -Const Co. v. Fersner, 4 Cir., 58 F.2d 27, 28; Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U.S. 215, 221-222, 29 S.Ct. 252, 53 L.Ed. 480.
Even if it be considered that the trucks and drivers are engaged in the business of taxpayers rather than of the company, the fact remains that all that they do is to move stone as a part of the quarrying and stone crushing operation in which the company is engaged on the quarry premises, without transporting it to any other place; and we think that this is no more transportation within the meaning of the statute than would be the movement of dirt or stone by a steam shovel under similar circumstances. The tax was manifestly intended to apply to transportation for hire as that term is generally understood, i. e. such transportation as is furnished by common carriers, freight haulers, express companies, etc., who carry property from one place to another for compensation, and has no application to a movement of property which is limited to the premises on which mining, quarrying, manufacturing or other form of productive enterprise is carried on and which constitutes an integral part of such enterprise. We think that this is made clear by the language of the statute itself as well as by the language of the regulation interpreting it. Certainly, this interpretation is sustained by the great weight of authority. See Masonite Corp. v. Fly, 5 Cir., 194 F.2d 257; Edward H. Ellis & Sons v. United States, 3 Cir., 187 F.2d 698; Castle Shannon Coal Corp. v. United States, D.C., 98 F.Supp. 163; Continental Oil Co. v. Jones, D.C., 92 F.Supp. 927; Lyle v. United States, D.C., 76 F.Supp. 787; Williams v. United States, D.C., 72 F.Supp. 300.
The case of Getchell Mine, Inc., v. United States, 9 Cir., 181 F.2d 987, relied on by appellee, is readily distinguishable. That case involved the transportation of gold ore from mine to mill by a trucking company which was paid by the cubic yard for the transportation of the ore and in accordance with the distance that it was transported. The movement of ore there involved from mine to mill was certainly transportation of property from one place to another within any fair meaning of the term “transportation” and was very different from the movement of stone to crusher and from crusher to stock pile here, all of which occurred on the quarry premises.
For the reasons stated the judgment appealed from will be reversed and the case will be remanded with direction to enter judgment for the taxpayers.
Reversed.

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: 99