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:
MARICOPA PACKING CO. v. SHORTRIDGE.
No. 12193.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 29, 1949.
Kramer, Morrison, Roche & Perry, Phoenix, Arizona, for appellant.
Charles A. Stanecker, Phoenix, Arizona, for appellee.
Before GARDNER and PIEALY, Circuit Judges, and YANKWTCH, District Judge.
Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, designated to sit in this court.
PER CURIAM.
On July 2, 1948, the Northern Meat Company filed its petition in bankruptcy, and was thereafter adjudged a bankrupt. Previously, on March 24 of that year, appellant had caused a writ of garnishment to be issued in a suit in the state court against the Meat Company, and by this process had obtained a lien upon the latter’s bank account in an amount exceeding $500. The suit was apparently contested and was still pending at the time of the Meat Company’s adjudication. The Trustee (appellee here) intervened to challenge the validity of the lien, asserting that the bankrupt was insolvent as of the date of its acquisition. The Trustee and the parties plaintiff and defendant in the suit stipulated that the question of insolvency be resolved by the bankruptcy referee, it being agreed by all concerned that the sequestration of the bankrupt’s funds was had within the four mouths’ period prescribed by the Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 107, sub. a(l). The state court postponed disposition of the challenged writ until the final determination of the controlling factual issue in the federal jurisdiction. Thereafter the matter came on for hearing before the referee on the Trustee’s petition; and upon the taking of evidence the referee found that the bankrupt was insolvent on March 24, 1948. The appeal is from the order of the district court affirming the finding.
Appellant contends that the finding of insolvency is unsupported by evidence. The only testimony on the point was that of a certified public accountant, who stated that he made no attempt to appraise the assets. In placing a valuation on certain trucks and other items of the bankrupt’s personal property he adopted the amounts realized ■ on their sale several months subsequent to March 24. These items were encumbered and on their disposition brought nothing beyond the amount of the encumbrances. As to other assets he accepted book values, although believing them excessive. While the accountant stressed realized values, his testimony m its entirety indicates that the values arrived at were in fact his own estimates of what the property would have brought had it been converted into cash on the critical date, the estimates, he- said, being based on a variety of “evidences” he had obtained from the files and from other sources. His testimony was given in conjunction with a tabulation he had prepared analyzing asset value and the tabulation was introduced as an exhibit. It is undisputed that the Meat Company lost money from the inception of its operations and that there was no good will. In respect to personal property, courts have sanctioned liberal ways of providing value. Sales of such property at a date not too remote from the valuation date are proper criteria of value. 32 C.J.S., Evidence, § 1049, and compare Bagdasarian v. Gragnon, 31 Cal. 2d 744, 192 P.2d 935. In the absence of countervailing evidence (and there was none here) we think there was sufficient proof of insolvency as of the date of the garnishment.
Order affirmed.
The statute, 11 U.S.C.A. § 107, sub. d(1), provides that a person is insolvent “when the present fair salable value of his property is less than the amount required to pay his debts”.

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