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:
John M. BENNETT, Appellant, v. Lawrence C. GUTMAN, Trustee and Evans-Johnson Company, purchaser, Appellees.
No. 285, Docket 27386.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued March 19, 1963.
Decided March 25, 1963.
Jacob W. Friedman, New York City, for appellant.
Lawrence C. Gutman, New York City (Leo H. Raines, New York City, on the brief), for appellees.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and CLARK and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.
LUMBARD, Chief Judge.
These consolidated appeals from four orders of the United States Court for the Southern District of New York question proceedings of that court in the bankruptcy of Leatherhide Industries, Inc. Leatherhide and/or John M. Bennett, who is its president and also one of its creditors, are denominated the appellants, but for all practical purposes Bennett alone is the party behind these appeals. The record indicates that Bennett, supported in a few instances by an attorney representing a number of creditors but not the Committee of Creditors, was also the primary, if not quite the sole, source of opposition throughout the protracted proceedings below. We affirm each of the orders in question.
The appellants challenge first the dismissal by Judge Bryan of a motion to review Referee Herzog’s order of August 29, 1958, adjudicating Leatherhide a bankrupt. Judge Bryan held that the matter had already been litigated and settled by an order of Judge Bicks dated September 8, 1959. Memorandum decision of Judge Bryan, June 15, 1960. No appeal was ever taken from Judge Bicks’ order. What the appellants sought to do by their motion before Judge Bryan was simply to disregard the prior order. The motion was properly dismissed.
The second order under attack is an order of Judge Cashin, dated August 8, 1960, which affirmed two orders of Referee Stephenson. The first approved a compromise of disputed claims between the trustee in bankruptcy and the Evans-Johnson Company, a claimant against the bankrupt estate. Order dated November 13, 1959. The second denied leave to file out of time a petition to review the first order. Opinion dated May 3, 1960. After entry of the referee’s first order, Bennett made a series of abortive motions to secure review of it. His primary objection to the order was that the assets transferred to Evans-Johnson pursuant to the compromise were worth much more than Evans-Johnson paid for them in cash and the settlement of claims; the record leaves little doubt that Bennett’s valuation of the transferred assets was, to say the least, highly exaggerated. In any event, although the court apprised him in plenty of time of the means by which he could secure review, see Bankruptcy Act, § 39, sub. c, 11 U.S.C. § 67, sub. c, he failed to adopt these means and continued to pursue his own course, apparently indifferent to both the statutes and judicial advice. Nevertheless, Referee Stephenson accorded him a full hearing before denying leave to file a petition for review out of time. Denial was based both on a failure to show good cause for the delay in filing the petition and on a failure to show a probability of error in the original order approving the compromise. See In re Advocate, 140 F.2d 783 (2 Cir., 1944). Judge Cashin agreed with the referee as to both points. We do also.
The appellants attack next an order of Judge Levet, dated December 10, 1959, which dismissed a petition of Leatherhide for reorganization under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act. This was the second such petition to be filed. See Leatherhide Industries, Inc. v. Lieberman, 268 F.2d 206 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 896, 80 S.Ct. 200, 4 L.Ed.2d 152 (1959). As the appellants have conceded, reorganization could not be carried through unless the bankrupt retained the assets which were transferred to the Evans-Johnson Company by the compromise referred to above. Since we have affirmed the order approving the compromise, there is no need to consider further the appeal from Judge Levet’s order.
Finally, the appellants seek reversal of an order of Judge Cashin, dated October 26, 1961, in which he reaffirmed his order of August 8,1960. This order was in response to appellants’ motion for an order directing the referee to certify additional papers to the court and for reconsideration on the basis of such papers of the referee’s order denying leave to file a belated petition for review of the order of November 13, 1959. One motion for the certification of additional papers having already been granted in its entirety, Judge Cashin found that there was no justification for the belated attempt to have other papers certified. We agree. In other respects, this order duplicates Judge Cashin’s order of August 8, 1960, which we have affirmed above.
All of the orders under review are affirmed.
. At the time in question, this section provided :
“A person aggrieved by an order of a referee may, within ten days after the entry thereof, or within such extended time as the court may for cause shown allow, file with the referee a petition for review of such order by a judge * *
By Act of July 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 528, this was amended to provide that an extension of time beyond the ten-day period may be granted only if a petition for an extension of time is filed within the ten-day period. Unless a petition for review or petition for an extension of time within which to file a petition for review is filed within the ten-day period, the order of the referee becomes final.
. The history of these maneuvers is set out in Referee Stephenson’s opinion of May 3, 1960, and also in Judge Cashin’s opinion of October 26, 1961, as to which see below.

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