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:
COLONIAL FINANCE CO. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11894.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 25, 1954.
Wm. B. Petermann, Cincinnati, Ohio, Robert R. Lavercombe, Petermann, Calhoun & McPherson, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, for appellant.
Richard H. Pennington, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cincinnati, Ohio, Hugh K. Martin, U. S. Atty., Thomas Stueve, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, for ap-pellee.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The United States filed the within libel for forfeiture of a 1949 Cadillac sedan under the provisions of Sections 781 and 782, Title 49 U.S.C.A. alleging that on or about September 2, 1952, certain contraband articles, to-wit, 88 gráins of heroin, were concealed and possessed in said motor vehicle and that the motor vehicle was used on that date to facilitate the concealment, possession and sale of the contraband articles. The appellant, Colonial Finance Company, intervened to protect its mortgagee interest in the property.
Two agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics testified concerning the purchase of the heroin on' September 2, 1952, from Harry Everett in' the back seat of a Cadillac automobile.. However, it was not until September 12, 1952, that the Cadillac automobile involved in this proceeding was seized. Following the trial, in which it was stipulated that the substance sold in the automobile on September 2, 1952, was heroin, the District Judge entered a decree of forfeiture.
We find no merit in appellant’s first contention that the evidence failed to show that the automobile seized on September 12, 1952, was the same automobile in which the 88-grains of heroin were sold to the narcotic agents on September 2, 1952. The evidence showed that Everett owned only one Cadillac automobile, and that the license number on the Cadillac seized, which was owned by Everett, was the same number as was on the Cadillac in which the sale took place. Although Government witnesses described the Cadillac in which ■ the sale took place as being dark, gray in color, while the Cadillac which was seized was of light gray color, the finding of the District Judge, on all of the evidence before him, that the two cars were the same is not, in our opinion, clearly erroneous.
The Government offered no evidence' that the heroin was not in its original stamped package, that it was' not from an original stamped package, or that there was an absence of appropriate tax-paid stamps. Appellant contends that in the absence of such evidence the Government failed to prove a violation of See. 2553, Title 26 U'.S.Code, on the ground that- sales in the original stamped package or from the original stamped package are not illegal under said section.
This' is not a criminal proceeding under that section, which deals with a violation of the revenue law. Sec. 782, Title 49 U.S.C.A., provides for the seizure and forfeiture of any Vehicle used in violation of Sec. 781 which makes it unlawful to use any vehicle to facilitate the concealment, possession or sale of any contraband article. Sec. 781 defines a contraband article as any narcotic drug which is sold or offered for sale “in violation of any laws or regulations of the United States dealing therewith” (Emphasis added). Sec. 174, Title 21 U.S.C.A., makes it illegal for any person to knowingly import any narcotic drug into the United States contrary to law or to sell any such narcotic drug after its importation, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law, and provides that possession by the defendant of the narcotic drug is sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains the possession to the satisfaction of the jury. Sec. 171, Title 21 U.S.C.A., defines the term “narcotic drug” as meaning opium or a derivative thereof. Heroin is a derivative of opium. While it is true that under Sec. 173, Title 21 U.S.C.A., some amounts of crude opium may be brought into the United States under Regulations by the Commissioner of Narcotics for medical and legitimate uses only, that section also provides “but no crude opium may be imported or brought in for the purpose of manufacturing heroin.”
In the present case, the Government’s evidence showed that the heroin was wrapped in three small tissue paper packages, which together with some marihuana cigarettes was contained in an ordinary paper sack which was concealed under the rear arm rest of the Cadillac automobile. Its possession by the seller was not explained.
Section 784, Title 49 U.S.C.A., implementing Sec. 781 and 782, provides that the provisions of law relating to the seizure and forfeiture of vessels and vehicles for violation of the custom laws are applicable to proceedings for the forfeiture of vehicles used in the violation of Sec. 781. Sec. 1615, Title 19 U.S.C.A., dealing with the procedure in such cases, provides that when probable cause has been first shown for the institution of such suit or action, to be adjudged by the court, the burden of proof shall lie upon the claimant. If the facts are of such a nature as to support a reasonable belief of a violation of the statute, although not enough to establish a prima facie case, probable cause has been shown. United States v. One 1949 Pontiac Sedan, 7 Cir., 194 F.2d 756, 759.
In our opinion, the foregoing evidence was sufficient to sustain the forfeiture adjudged by the District Court. United States v. Andrade, 9 Cir., 181 F.2d 42.
The judgment is 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