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:
Susie BARNHILL, Howard Pinder, Sr., Howard Pinder, Jr., and Fredi Clarke, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18183.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
June 8, 1960.
J. Edward Worton, Miami, Fla., for appellants.
Lloyd G. Bates, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., E. Coleman Madsen, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, JONES, and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
WISDOM, Circuit Judge:
This singular appeal is a product of the legal paradox of imposing federal excise taxes on business activities regarded as criminal in most states.
Four professional gamblers pleaded guilty to evading federal gambling taxes. The district judge offered the defendants the choice between a jail sentence and probation carrying a condition that they give up gambling. They chose probation. Now, however, they are unhappy with what to them in retrospect seems to have been Hobson's choice. They appeal, attacking as an abuse of judicial discretion the probationary condition forbidding gambling. In other words, they cling to probation while seeking to welch on its price.
In a colloquy with one of the defendants the district judge stated that as he viewed it, “the government does not want you to get out of the business [of gambling].” Nevertheless, the defendants say, the court proceeded to put them out of business. Moreover, the argument runs, gambling as such does not violate any federal statute and the gambler’s occupational tax statute is a measure for the collection of revenues; it is not a police measure. And it is not an instrument for moral reform.
One must say that the appellants, as gamblers apparently still anxious to pursue their chosen profession, are in a predicament. But they got in it of their own doing, elected to stay in it of their own free will, and the misgivings they now have should have occurred to them before they agreed to probation on the trial judge’s terms. They complain of the court’s doing exactly what they agreed that the court should do as an alternative to their going to jail.
It is a reasonable alternative. A broad latitude is given to a district court in prescribing conditions of probation in order to help probationers make the necessary adjustment with society. There is nothing unusual in conditioning probation on the defendant’s obeying the law, state law and federal law. Florida statutes make it a violation for a person to have gambling paraphernalia in his possession. Professional gambling got these defendants into trouble. It seems a fair exercise of judicial discretion therefore for the district court to proscribe gambling. In Stone v. United States, 9 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 331, 333, dining car employees were convicted of unlawfully taking money from dining ears on trains moving in interstate commerce. The district judge placed the defendants on probation subject to the condition that they not return to employment as stewards on any railroad engaged in interstate commerce. The Circuit Court approved the order although the effect of the order was to deprive the probationers of their usual employment.
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s special conditions of probation. On the contrary, the district court tempered justice with a large measure of mercy to defendants admittedly guilty and subject to imprisonment for five years.
The appeal is dismissed.
. 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 4401, 4411, 4412, 4421, 4901(a), 7203.
. In addition to imposing standing conditions of probation, the judgment imposed the following special conditions:
“3. That he .shall refrain from engaging, either directly or indirectly, in any game of chance, including lottery, or in any other method of gambling, professional or otherwise.
“4. That he shall not associate with any persons who are engaged- in or involved with games of chance or gambling.”
. The Federal Probation Act, 18 U.S.O. § 3651, in part, states:
“ * * * any court having jurisdiction to try offenses against the United States, * * * when satisfied that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as the defendant will be served thereby, may suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems best.”

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