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:
McCAUGHN, Collector, v. WILLIAMS.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
January 3, 1928.
No. 3639.
Internal revenue <®=>2(3) — Statute Imposing excise tax on membership in club held valid (Revenue Act 1921, § 801 [Comp. St. § § 6309%b]).
A membership in a social club cannot be regarded for taxing purposes as property but as giving a right to share in the social features afforded by the club in the use of its property and facilities during continuance of the membership, whether a life or annual membership, and Revenue Act 1921, § 801, (Comp. St. § 6309%b), imposing an excise tax on such right or privilege, is valid.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Oliver B. Dickinson, Judge.
Action by Ira Jewell Williams against B. D. MeCaughn, Collector of Internal Revenue. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Reversed.
For opinion below, see 17 F.(2d) 295.
George W. Coles, U. S. Atty., of Philadelphia, Pa., and Ralph S. Scott and Alexander W. Gregg, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
Ira Jewell Williams, William Clarke Mason, and Francis Shunk Brown, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant in error.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In the court below, Ira Jewell Williams brought suit and had judgment against the United States for income tax, alleged to have been wrongfully assessed against him and which he paid under protest. Thereupon the government sued out this writ of error, and the question involved is, Is a tax imposed annually upon a life membership in a social club a direct tax upon property and as such void as being unapportioned under article 1, §§ 2 and 9, of the Federal Constitution? About June 30,1919, Mr. Williams became a life member of the University Club of Philadelphia on payment of the life membership fee of $750, and thereby and thereafter was excused from the payment of annual dues. While the club owns valuable real estate, it is chartered by the state of Pennsylvania as a corporation, not for profit, but for social purposes. The tax in question was assessed by virtue of that provision which in section 801 of the Act of 1918 (Comp. St. § 6309%b), section 801 of 1921 (Comp. St. § 6309%b), and section 501 of 1924 (26 USCA § 872; Comp. St. § 6309%e), reads as follows: “In the case of life memberships a life member shall pay annually, at the time for the payment of dues by active resident annual members, a tax equivalent to the tax upon the amount paid by such a member, hut shall pay no tax upon the amount paid for life membership” — and the decisive question is whether the present tax is one on property, as Mr. Williams contends, or an excise tax, as the government avers.
Although the tax here in question is small, the principle involved is important, and the case has been presented on both sides with great earnestness,, and the paper books display a wealth of scholarly research which reflects credit on the counsel concerned. We shall not attempt to discuss these questions, but limit ourselves to stating onr conclusions upon the crucial question to which all discussion finally centers, namely, whether the tax assessed against Mr. Williams was laid on his property. That the club owns valuable real estate and that Mr. Williams, as a member of the club, has a present proprietary interest in its property and in the event of its dissolution might participate in the distribution thereof among its then members is the fact. But such proprietary interest does not of itself determine the question, for it still remains to consider the question, What is the relationship of club membership toward the property of the elubl The annual member as distinguished from a life member, so long as he pays his dues and remains in good standing, is entitled to share with other members in the use of the club’s property for the social purposes for which it was chartered. The exercise of such social privileges constitutes the purpose which called the club into being, and its ownership of property is an incident to enable the club to carry out the social purposes of its creation. When the annual member ceases to pay his dues or for any reason ends his membership, the chartered social purposes of the club as to him ends, and perforce all right, share, or participation in its incident of property. He cannot by Ms own act sell Ms membership; it is not an asset;1 it does not survive the severing of Ms connection with tlie club, and equally with a life membership all rights to the club end with death. Seeing then that membership of a elnb, while it involves a certain usufruct of property for social purposes and is to that extent an interest in its property of such a substantial sort that a club member cannot be unjustly expelled therefrom, yet, where substance is concerned, wo are of opinion that membership of a club cannot be regarded for taxing purposes as property, but as a right to share in the social features afforded by the club in the use of its property and facilities. It is the exorcise of this personal privilege of the member, annual by virtue of maintained continuity of annual duos, and anticipation and prepayment of all dues at once by a life member, which the federal statute, and rightly we hold, taxes.
So regarding, the judgment below must be reversed.

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