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:
Charles W. JAMIESON, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 15143.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Nov. 9, 1965.
Charles W. Jamieson, Chicago, 111., for petitioner.
Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tax Division, Lawrence B. Silver, Atty., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Lee A. Jackson, David O. Walter, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before SCHNACKENBERG, CASTLE and KILEY, Circuit Judges.
SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.
Charles W. Jamieson, taxpayer, has by his petition asked us to review the decision of the Tax Court of the United States denying him a $600 deduction as an exemption for his wife on his separate income tax return for the year 1960.
During 1960 he was a 75-year-old retired lawyer and his wife was 61 years old. His separate income tax return stated that his wife was a bookkeeper and that she was filing a separate return. However, he deducted $600 as a personal exemption for his wife, as well as $1200 as two exemptions for himself, i. e., the regular personal exemption and the exemption allowed a taxpayer who is 65 years of age or over.
The Tax Court made findings embodying the foregoing facts, inter alia.
In this court taxpayer relies upon the following as propositions of law:
“Whether or not a taxpayer expending $2500.00 per year in entire support of himself and his wife, his dependent, can claim said wife, his dependent, when charging off one-half of the above expenditure for her support and claiming an exemption for that charge-off, under proper interpretation of the intent of the Congress, and the Code Secs. 151(b) and 152(a) 9 as liberally construed by case law and mixed law and fact theories; the Code under Title 26, and Supplements thereto, United States Supreme Court case law, that of the Courts of Appeals, District Courts and Illinois case law where applicable; please see index.
“Regulations Sec. 1 152-1 (a) (2) defines support as food, shelter, medical care and the like. This broad term and the like is, this Court will doubtlessly agree, sufficient to cover appellant’s needs in his favor where-ever arbitrarily held against appellant and, has latitude sufficient to help prove his case. (Such liberal verbiage is used in the instruction sheets 1964).”
We believe the controlling question before us is largely determined by the provisions of 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 151 and 152, which, insofar as pertaining hereto, we set forth below.
Sec. 151. Allowance of Deductions for Personal Exemptions
(a) Allowance of deductions. — In the case of an individual, the exemptions provided by this section shall be allowed as deductions in computing taxable income.
(b) Taxpayer and spouse. — An exemption of $600 for the taxpayer; and an additional exemption of $600 for the spouse of the taxpayer if a separate return is made by the taxpayer, and if the spouse, for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins, has no gross income and is not the dependent of anq^her taxpayer.
-K * ' * * * *
Sec. 152. Dependent Defined.
(a) General definition. — For purposes of this subtitle, the term “dependent” means any of the following individuals over half of whose support, for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins, was received from the taxpayer * * «• .
(9) An individual [other than an individual who at any time during the taxable year was the spouse, determined without regard to section 153, of the taxpayer] who, for the taxable year of the taxpayer, has as his principal place of abode the home of the taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer’s household, * * *
In the case at bar respondent determined that taxpayer’s wife had a gross income during the taxable year. This was not disputed by him. If a husband and a wife file separate returns, each must take his or her own exemption.
Under § 151(b), a husband, as a taxpayer, may not on his separate return claim a deduction for a $600 personal exemption of his wife, in addition to his own $600 exemption, where she had gross income during the husband’s taxable year.
As to taxpayer’s propositions of law aforesaid, which assert that he expended $2500 per year in entire support of himself and his wife, charging off one-half thereof for her support and claiming an exemption therefor, the answer is set forth in our holdings in this opinion. There is nothing which may be added which promises to clear up the obvious confusion in taxpayer’s mind, which we regret.
For these reasons the judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.

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