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:
Chester BOWLES, Administrator, OPA, et al. v. JACOBSON et al.
No. 11000.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 1944.
Harold Craske, Litigation Atty., OPA, Fleming James, Jr., Director, Litigation Division, O P A, and David London, Chief, Appellate Branch, OPA, all of Washington, D. C., and David B. Love, Regional Litigation Atty., O P A, of Dallas, Tex., for appellants.
J. Manuel Hoppenstein, of Dallas, Tex., for appellees.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
McCORD, Circuit Judge.
The opinion of the court below entirely misconceived the purpose of the War Powers Act, which is here under consideration: “* * * Whenever the President is satisfied that the fulfillment of requirements for the defense of the United States will result in a shortage in the supply of any material or of any facilities for defense or for private account or for export, the President may allocate such material or facilities in such manner, upon such conditions and to such extent as he shall deem necessary or appropriate in the public interest and to promote the national defense.” 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 633, Sec. 2(a) (2).
It is not an Act to punish, but a provision whereby one of the arms of the Government may and must see to it that the allocation of fuel oils is preserved by an efficient and equitable distribution. Violations by those dispensing these fuels are, therefore, obviously germane to the problem of allocation, since they indicate that this scarce and vital commodity may be and is being “distributed in an inefficient, inequitable, and wasteful way.”
We do not attempt to set out the evidence, which is without dispute, and which discloses that petitioners were wilfully violating the Act. Such a course might indicate that we sought the punishment of petitioners, which is not the case. The Act does not attempt to punish but to preserve and allocate fuel oils in such a way that what is left after war needs are met may be divided equitably among all consumers who are similarly situated.
Our soldiers are feeding ammunition at this very hour into steel-lipped guns, and they must rely upon us to see to it that they receive this ammunition promptly, and along with it food supplies and equipment. This means that fuel oils for motor vehicles carrying these supplies to our soldiers must be preserved, whatever the cost. The very life of our Republic depends upon preserving war needs of which this fuel comprises a vital part. It might not be amiss to pass to you our observation that we are prone to become irritated and to complain and jostle each other when we are restrained as to our wants and desires, and we thereupon shout our criticism of those who are preserving for us vital war materials.
The suspension order under consideration is a valid and constitutional exercise of the allocation power provided by the Second War Powers Act. L. P. Steuart & Bro. v. Bowles, 322 U.S. 398, 64 S. Ct. 1097, 88 L.Ed.-; Brown v. Wilemon, 5 Cir., 139 F.2d 730; Talbert v. Sims, 4 Cir., 143 F.2d 958.
The judgment and restraining order of the court below is reversed and the cause is remanded with direction to enter a decree in all respects upholding the order of the Price Administrator.
Reversed and remanded with direction.

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