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:
SAWYER v. ORLOV.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
November 23, 1926.)
No. 2046.
1. Bankruptcy <§=>414(2) — Referee’s consider, ation of finding of court on petition for discharge of bankrupt in suit to set aside transfer, held wholly irregular.
It is wholly irregular for referee, on petition for discharge of bankrupt, opposed on ground that, within four months before filing of petition in bankruptcy, bankrupt made transfer with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors, to take into consideration finding of court in suit by trustee in bankruptcy to set aside the transfer.
2. Judgment <@=>715(2) — Decree denying, composition on finding of transfer with intent to defraud creditors is conclusive between parties on petition for discharge.
Referee’s finding that bankrupt made transfer with deliberate intent to defraud creditors, affirmed by decree denying composition, was conclusive determination of the fact between the parties to composition proceeding, when called in question in subsequent proceeding for discharge of bankrupt, to which they were likewise parties.
3. Judgment <@=>948 (I) — Decree not pleaded is admissible in subsequent proceeding between same parties on different cause of action.
Proceeding for bankrupt’s discharge being different cause of action from prior one for composition, decree in the prior proceeding need not be pleaded to be admissible in evidence in the later proceeding and is there conclusive as to the matters directly in issue and either admitted by the pleadings or actually tried in the prior proceeding between the same parties.
Appeal from tbe District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; James M. Morton, Jr., Judge.
George Orlov was granted a discharge in bankruptcy, and Harry Sawyer, objecting creditor, appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Simon B. Stein, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.
Samuel Sigilman, of Boston, Mass., for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.'
BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court for Massachusetts, granting the bankrupt a discharge. Harry Sawyer, a creditor of the bankrupt, objected to the discharge, and, among his specifications of objections, alleged that the bankrupt, “within the four months preceding the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, upon which he was adjudicated, transferred to a corporation organized by him and owned by him substantially all of his merchandise, with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors. The referee, in his report on the petition for discharge, states that the same question had been previously presented to him on the bankrupt’s petition for composition; that in that proceeding Sawyer filed the same specification of objection to the composition; that at that 'time he found the bankrupt had made the transfer in question with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his. creditors; and that he refused to confirm the composition.
It also appears that the District Court entered a decree denying the petition for composition, based upon a report of the referee embodying the finding “that the bankrupt' had made the transfer with the deliberate intent to defraud his creditors.”
The referee further states, in his report on the petition for discharge, that, subsequent to the decree denying composition, a suit was tried in the District Court, brought by the trustee in bankruptcy, to set aside the same transfer, in which it was found that the bankrupt “did not act with conscious fraudulent intent in making the transfer”; and that, “in deference to the superior judgment of the court” in that suit, he accepted that conclusion, although opposed to his own decision, previously rendered, and recommended the bankrupt’s discharge. Thereafter on this report the District Court- entered a decree discharging the bankrupt, and this appeal was taken.
In his assignment of errors, the appellant complains, among other things, that the court erred (1) in taking into consideration the alleged finding of the District Court in another case between different parties to the effect that the bankrupt did not act with conscious fraudulent intent in making the transfer; and (2) in not holding that the decree affirming the referee’s report and denying composition was a final adjudication upon the question of fraud involved and conclusive thereon as between these parties.
The first assignment must be sustained. It was wholly irregular for the referee to take into consideration the finding of the District Court in another suit between different parties.
The second assignment likewise must be sustained. The finding of the referee in the composition proceeding, that the bankrupt made the transfer to the corporation with the “deliberate intent to defraud his creditors,” affirmed by the decree denying composition, was a conclusive determination of these facts as between these parties when called in question in the subsequent proceeding for discharge to which they were likewise parties. Sutton v. Wentworth, 247 F. 493, 501, 160 C. C. A. 3; Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 352, 352, 24 L. Ed. 195; Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States, 168 U. S. 1, 57, 59, 60, 18 S. Ct. 18, 42 L. Ed. 355.
As the proceeding for discharge was a different cause of action from the prior one for composition, it was unnecessary to plead the prior judgment or decree in the subsequent proceeding. In such case the judgment or decree in the prior proceeding may be offered in evidence, and is conclusive as to those matters which were there directly in issue and either admitted by the pleadings or actually tried. Sutton v. Wentworth, supra; Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States, supra.
The decree of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion, with costs to the appellant.

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