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:
BAILY et al. v. BALLANCE.
No. 4803.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct. 13, 1941.
1 J. Randolph Davis and William M. Phipps, both of Norfolk, Va., for appellants.
Sidney Sacks and Albert S. Lewis, both of Norfolk, Va., for appellee.
Before PARKER, SOPER, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order granting a discharge in bankruptcy, which was opposed on the ground that the bankrupt had failed “to keep or preserve books of account or records from which his financial condition and business transactions might be ascertained”. Bankrupt was a traveling salesman who kept no books or records. He had a bank account in which he made deposits and against which he drew checks, but he did not preserve his bank statements or cancelled checks after he had examined them. The finding of the Referee in Bankruptcy approved by the District Judge was that bankrupt was not engaged in business for himself but was working for another upon commissions paid him monthly; that such bank account as he carried reflected only his personal expenses; and that his failure to keep or preserve books of account or records was justified in view of the nature and character of his employment.
We see no reason to disturb the action of the court below based upon the findings and recommendations of the referee. The provision of the Bankruptcy Act is that the court shall grant the discharge unless satisfied that “the bankrupt has * * * (2) destroyed, mutilated, falsified, concealed, or failed to keep or preserve books of account or records, from which his financial condition and business transactions might be ascertained, unless the court deems such acts or failure to have been justified under all the circumstances of the case”. 11 U.S.C.A. § 32 sub. c(2). Whether such failure is so justified is thus left to the determination of the court in the exercise of a sound discretion (Huffman v. Tevis, 9 Cir., 82 F.2d 940; Rosenberg v. Bloom, 9 Cir., 99 F.2d 249); and there is .nothing in the record before us to indicate that such discretion has been in any way abused in this case. On the contrary, it is clear that failure to keep or preserve records is properly held to be justified when the nature of the bankrupt’s occupation is such that the keeping or preserving of records is not required by it. Remington on Bankruptcy, 5th Ed., vol. 7, §§ 3304-6; In re Weismann, D.C., 1 F.Supp. 723; In re Earl, 8 Cir., 45 F.2d 492; In re Neiderheiser, 8 Cir., 45 F.2d 489, 490. As was well said by the late Judge Kenyon in the case last cited, which likewise dealt with the discharge in bankruptcy of a traveling salesman:
“If the occupation or business of the bankrupt were such that ordinarily no books of account would be kept, or if the court under all the circumstances deems the failure to keep such books justified, then the failure so to do would not be sufficient to bar discharge. If the bankrupt were engaged in no business and was a mere employee not in the habit of keeping books or records of account, surely the failure so to do would be no bar to discharge. Such appears to be the situation here. Appellant was a traveling man on a small salary, who had not been accustomed to keeping books, had no particular need for so doing, and testified he never did keep books. Under these circumstances we think subdivision 2 above set out would not be applicable. Bankrupt testified he did not have his checks or records of deposit; that he had returned his bank book to the bank. His testimony on this subject is rather unsatisfactory, but we think the evidence is not sufficient to show that he was under any compulsion to keep any books or that he intentionally destroyed or concealed any books or records from which his financial condition might be ascertained.”
The order appealed from will accordingly be affirmed. The motion to dismiss the appeal will be denied on authority of Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557.
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: 1