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:
In the Miatter of J. C. CATLOW, Debtor. Lawrence J. MARKS, individually and on behalf of Wendy Kay Hall, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. J. C. CATLOW, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 79-3638.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 15, 1981.
Decided Dec. 14, 1981.
James B. Feeley, Rowe & Feeley, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.
Barry Adler, Eskanos & Fertig, Oakland, Cal., argued, for plain tiff s-appellees; Lawrence J. Marks, Phoenix, Ariz., on brief.
Before WALLACE and TANG, Circuit Judges and PALMIERI, District Judge.
Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
TANG, Circuit Judge:
This appeal is from a district court judgment affirming a bankruptcy court judgment declaring an attorney’s fee award nondischargeable in bankruptcy. The issue is whether attorney’s fees awarded to a bankrupt’s former spouse in a post-divorce child custody proceeding in Arizona is nondischargeable under section 17(a)(7) of the former Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 35(a)(7) (1976). We conclude that the award is nondischargeable and therefore affirm.
The appellant, J. C. Catlow, and his wife were divorced in 1975. The divorce decree awarded custody of the minor child to Cat-low’s wife. In 1977, Catlow sued in an Arizona state court to obtain custody over the child. After the custody proceeding, the court, pursuant to Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 25-324 (1976), ordered Catlow to pay his former wife’s attorney’s fees for the proceeding. Catlow subsequently filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition in the District of Arizona. The former wife’s attorney, the appellee here, filed a complaint with the bankruptcy court asking that the attorney’s fee award be declared nondischargeable and exempt from the stay of process by Cat-low’s creditors. The bankruptcy court held the fees nondischargeable and exempt from the stay under section 17(a)(7) of the former Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 35(a)(7) (1976), and the district court affirmed.
Section 17(a)(7) of the former Bankruptcy Act provides that a discharge in bankruptcy does not release the bankrupt from debts “for alimony due or to become due, or for maintenance or support of wife or child . . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 35(a)(7) (1976). In the absence of specific conflict with federal law, we must look to state law to delineate the parties’ state-created support obligations. See Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green, 329 U.S. 156, 161, 67 S.Ct. 237, 238-239, 91 L.Ed. 162 (1946). As this court has noted, “[f]ederal bankruptcy law is not the source of these obligations; it takes them as it finds them and, when necessary, characterizes the legal relations existing between the parties for its own purposes.” Albin v. Albin (In re Albin), 591 F.2d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1979).
Catlow argues that the district and bankruptcy courts below misapplied section 17(a)(7) in holding the attorney’s fee award nondischargeable. He acknowledges that this circuit has previously ruled that attorney’s fees awarded to a bankrupt’s former spouse in a California divorce action is in the nature of spousal support and is therefore not dischargeable. See Jones v. Tyson (In re Jones), 518 F.2d 678, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1975). He contends, however, that even if this rule applies to Arizona divorce proceedings, it does not extend to post-divorce proceedings that are unrelated to enforcing spousal support obligations. As the proceeding at issue here occurred two years after his divorce and dealt exclusively with child custody, he contends that the fee award may not be characterized as spousal support and is therefore dischargeable in bankruptcy. We disagree.
The Arizona statute authorizing attorney’s fees, like the statute considered in Jones v. Tyson, permits a fee award upon a showing of financial necessity and requires a court to consider the respective needs and incomes of both spouses prior-to making an award. See Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 25-324 (1976). Arizona courts have ruled consistently that this statutory obligation is founded upon a spouse’s duty of support to his or her spouse. The courts have held that “attorney’s fees are as much for the wife’s support as payments made directly to her ... ”, Johnson v. Johnson, 22 Ariz.App. 69, 71, 523 P.2d 515, 517 (1974) quoting Bickel v. Bickel, 17 Ariz.App. 29, 30-31, 495 P.2d 154, 155-56 (1972), and a decision to grant fees “is an adjudication of her need of such support in order to litigate with her husband upon an equal basis,” id. 22 Ariz.App. at 71, 523 P.2d at 517 (same). Accord, Gubser v. Gubser (In re Gubser), 126 Ariz. 303, 305, 614 P.2d 845, 847 (1980); Kingsbery v. Kingsbery, 93 Ariz. 217, 227, 379 P.2d 893, 900 (1963); Olsztyn v. Olsztyn, 20 Ariz.App. 545, 549, 514 P.2d 498, 502 (1973); Bickel v. Bickel, 17 Ariz.App. 29, 30-31, 495 P.2d 154, 155-56 (1972); Reich v. Reich, 13 Ariz.App. 98, 99, 474 P.2d 457, 458 (1970). This purpose has been considered of such paramount importance that the Arizona Supreme court has ruled sua sponte that the standards in the attorney’s fees statute govern over any other contractual arrangements the parties have made for allocating attorney’s fees. See Gubser v. Gubser (In re Gubser), 126 Ariz. at 305, 614 P.2d at 847. Moreover, like alimony and child support, a spouse’s obligation to pay attorney’s fees is enforceable by contempt. Johnson v. Johnson, 22 Ariz.App. at 71, 523 P.2d at 517.
The distinction Catlow attempts to draw between divorce proceedings and post-divorce child custody proceedings has no basis in Arizona law. Arizona law makes no distinction between fees awarded for legal services related to the actual dissolution of marriage and those related to child custody proceedings held subsequent to divorce. See Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 25-324 (1976) (statute’s provisions govern both divorce and child custody proceedings); see also Gubser v. Gubser (In re Gubser), 126 Ariz. at 304-05, 614 P.2d at 846-47 (statutory fee may be awarded in child custody proceeding held four years after divorce); Long v. Long, 39 Ariz. 271, 276-77, 5 P.2d 1047, 1049 (1931) (court has power to award attorney’s fee in child custody proceeding held nine months after divorce); Bradstreet v. Bradstreet, 34 Ariz. 340, 346-47, 271 P. 717, 719 (1928) (statutory fee awarded in child custody proceeding held subsequent to divorce action); Smith v. Smith, 117 Ariz. 249, 571 P.2d 1045 (Ariz.App.1977) (statutory fee awarded in child custody proceeding held two years after divorce).
Arizona treats a post-divorce child custody proceeding as a continuation of the original divorce action. See Beard v. Greer, 116 Ariz. 536, 539, 570 P.2d 223, 226 (Ariz.App. 1977). The factors and bases delimiting a court’s power to award attorney’s fees in the original action are therefore identical in the later ancillary proceeding. See Bradstreet v. Bradstreet, 34 Ariz. at 346-47, 271 P. at 719. As Arizona law considers attorney’s fees to be spousal support if awarded in the original divorce action, this characterization must therefore also apply to fees awarded in post-divorce child custody proceedings.
As Catlow’s debt for legal services is founded upon his state-created obligation to support his former wife, the debt is nondischargeable under section 17(a)(7) of the former Bankruptcy Act. See Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. 68, 76-77, 25 S.Ct. 172, 175, 49 L.Ed. 390 (1904); Jones v. Tyson (In re Jones), 518 F.2d at 680.
AFFIRMED:
. This proceeding is governed by the former Bankruptcy Act because Catlow’s petition was filed before October 1, 1979, the new Bankruptcy Act’s effective date. See Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Pub.L. 95-598, §§ 402(a), 403(a), 92 Stat. 2549.
We reserve the question whether attorney’s fees awarded to a bankrupt’s former spouse or the spouse’s attorney in a divorce or post-divorce action is dischargeable under section 523(a)(5) of the new Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) (Supp.1979). Compare Spong v. Pauley (In re Spong), 661 F.2d 6 at 11 (2d Cir. 1981) (nondischargeable) (New York law); Leonhardt v. Whitehurst (In re Whitehurst), 10 B.R. 229, 230 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Fla.1981) (nondischargeable); Lineberry v. Lineberry (In re Lineberry), 9 B.R. 700, 709-10 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mo. 1981) (nondischargeable) (Missouri law); French v. Prante (In re French), 9 B.R. 464, 467-69 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.1981) (nondischargeable); Janashak v. Demkow (In re Demkow), 8 B.R. 554, 555 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio 1981) (nondischargeable); A. A. Legal Clinic, Ltd. v. Wells (In re Wells), 8 B.R. 189, 193 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill. 1981) (nondischargeable) (Illinois law); Bennett v. Knabe (In re Knabe), 8 B.R. 53, 56-57 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ind.1981) (nondischargeable) (Indiana law); Bell v. Bell (In re Bell), 5 B.R. 653, 655 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Okla.1980) (nondischargeable) (Oklahoma law); Pelikant v. Richter (In re Pelikant), 5 B.R. 404, 407-08 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill. 1980) (nondischargeable) (Illinois law); with In re Crawford, 8 B.R. 552 (Bkrtcy.D.Kan.1981) (dischargeable because fees owed to spouse’s attorney rather than to spouse); Asgeirson v. Delillo (In re Delillo), 5 B.R. 692, 694 (Bkrtcy.D. Mass. 1980) (same); Monday v. Allen (In re Allen), 4 B.R. 617, 620 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Tenn.1980) (same).
. Federal courts have generally held a debt for attorney’s fees to be nondischargeable under section 17(a)(7) when the fees are awarded to a bankrupt’s spouse in a divorce action. See DuBroff v. Steingesser (In re Steingesser), 602 F.2d 36, 38 (2d Cir. 1979) (New York law); Brody & Brody v. Birdseye (In re Birdseye), 548 F.2d 321, 323-25 (10th Cir. 1977) (Connecticut law); Schiller v. Cornish (In re Cornish), 529 F.2d 1363, 1364-65 (7th Cir. 1976) (Illinois law); Nunnally v. Nunnaiiy (In re Nunnaliy), 506 F.2d 1024, 1026-27 (5th Cir. 1975) (Texas law); Damon v. Damon, 283 F.2d 571, 573-74 (1st Cir. 1960) (Maine law); In re Hargrove, 361 F.Supp. 851, 853-54 (W.D.Mo.1973) (Missouri law) (state post-divorce proceeding); Gagnon v. Gagnon (In re Gagnon), No. BK-79-52 (Bankr.D.Me. April 29, 1980) (Maine law); Mahoney v. Smith (In re Smith), 3 B.R. 224, 231-32 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Va.1980) (District of Columbia law). But see Krings v. Moyer, 13 B.R. 436 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mo.1981) (Missouri law).
. Catlow also argues that section 17(a)(7) is unconstitutional because, in failing to make alimony paid to a husband nondischargeable, it creates a gender-based distinction violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Catlow, however, did not raise this issue before either the bankruptcy court or the district court. We therefore refuse to consider the issue on appeal. See Albin v. Albin (In re Albin), 591 F.2d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1979).
. The statute provides;
The court from time to time, after considering the financial resources of both parties, may order a party to pay a reasonable amount to the other party for the costs and expenses of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this chapter. For the purpose of this section costs and expenses may include attorney’s fees, deposition costs, and such other reasonable expenses as the court finds necessary to the full and proper presentation of the action, including any appeal. The court may order all such amounts paid directly to the attorney, who may enforce the order in his name with the same force and effect, and in the same manner, as if the order had been made on behalf of any party to the action.
Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 25-324 (1976).
. We also reject Catlow’s contention that Congress narrowed the dischargeability exception’s scope when it recodified the section from section 17(a)(2) to section 17(a)(7) in Public Law 91-^67, § 5, 84 Stat. 990 (1970). Nothing in the amendments’ language or the legislative history suggests that Congress contemplated such a change in the dischargeability exception’s substantive content. See H.R.Rep.No.91-1502, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 2, reprinted in [1970] U.S. Code Cong. & Ad.News 4156, 4157 (amendments designed not to change the policy of Congress in determining what debts are dis-chargeable).

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