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:
KASPROWICZ et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 5, 1927.
No. 4884.
1. Intoxicating liquors <@=236(19) — Evidence held to sustain conviction of various defendants for manufacture of intoxicating liquor.
Evidence held to sustain conviction of various defendants for manufacture of intoxicating liquor, namely, beer.
2. Intoxicating liquors <@=249 — Manufacture of liquor in dwelling may be of such commercial character as to justify search warrant.
Manufacture of intoxicating liquor in a dwelling house may be of such commercial character as to justify a search warrant.
3. Intoxicating liquors <@=248 — Affidavit held to show that dwelling was used for manufacture of beer on commercial scale, and hence for sale of liquor, and to justify issuance of search warrant (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 3 [Comp. St. § 10138 i/2aa]).
Affidavit for search of dwelling held to suffi-ciently show that it was being used for the manufacture of beer on a commercial scale for commercial purposes, and hence in effect for sale of liquor, and in view of National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 3 (Oomp. St. § 10138% aa), to justify issuance of search warrant.
4. Searches and seizures <@=3(4) — Sufficiency of affidavit must be tested by its statements of fact, not by its conclusions.
Sufficiency of affidavit on which search warrant is issued must be tested by its statements of fact rather than, by its-conclusions.
5. Intoxicating liquors <@=249 — Search warrant, directed to assistants and agents of Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and executed by one signing as “Federal Prohibition Agent,” held sufficiently served.
Where search warrant was directed to assistants and agents of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and executed and returned by one who signed as “Federal Prohibition Agent,” service was sufficiently regular.
6. Criminal law. <@=304(17) — Courts judicially know that prohibition agent is assistant and agent of Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Courts take judicial notice that a prohibition agent is an assistant and agent of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the enforcement of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138% et seq.).
In Error to the District Court of tbe United States for tbe Eastern District of Michigan; Arthur J. Tuttle, Judge.
Victoria Kasprowiez and others were convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and they bring error.
Affirmed.
Henry A. Behrendt and Behrendt & Behrendt, all of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs in error.
C. Frederic Stanton, of Detroit, Mich., for the United States.
Before DENISON, MOORMAN, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.
DENISON, Circuit Judge.
Federal prohibition agents, acting under a search warrant, found a brewing establishment in operation in the basement of a dwelling owned by Mrs. Kasprowiez, and occupied as a home by her and her husband, Joseph. There were 11 copper vats, of 100 gallons each, in which mash was fermenting.' The finished product being sent out contained substantially 4 per cent, of alcohol. Three men were found in the basement. All five were indicted under three counts for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, possession thereof, and maintaining a nuisance. They were convicted, and all join in this writ of error.
The three men found in the basement complain that there was no evidence against them to make a case for the jury. It appeared that two of them were in working clothes and seemed to be carrying on the operation. This inference which the jury drew as to them was not without substantial support. The third man claimed to be the owner of one of the automobiles standing in the yard, and which was being regularly used in carrying away the finished product. The conclusion that he was at least aiding and abetting the manufacture was justified.
The main question relied upon in the court below and here is that the search warrant was unauthorized, and hence that the evidence thus obtained from a dwelling house was inadmissible. The question sharply presented is whether the manufacture of intoxicating liquor in a dwelling house may be of such commercial character as to justify a search warrant. This is the question which we expressly reserved in Staker v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 5 F.(2d) 312, saying (page 313): “Whether, if the evidence adduced were sufficient to indicate that the magnitude of the manufacture was of such a degree as fairly to necessitate the conclusion that the manufacture was but a step in the sale or marketing of the product, a search warrant could properly issue, we are not called upon to decide.”
The seareh warrant now involved was issued upon an affidavit, the sufficiency of which must be tested by its statements of fact rather than by its conclusions. We therefore disregard the allegation made in terms that the premises were being used for business purposes and for the sale of intoxicating liquor, and look only to the circumstances expressly stated. These were, in brief, that the premises consisted of this house and a garage in the rear upon an alley. The garage opened through, so that automobiles drove into the back yard. Prohibition agents had watched the place for three days, and had seen four different automobiles, making two to five trips each per day, drive in and away after opportunity to load up in the garage, and also had seen men rolling out of the basement and into the yard or garage a large number of sueh half barrels as are commonly used for beer. Other details were stated, and all together fully justified a conclusion that beer was being manufactured in the basement on a scale which resulted in an output of several barrels per day, which output was being regularly hauled away to other parts of the city — in other words, that beer was being there manufactured upon a commercial scale for commercial purposes, and not merely for home use.
Coming to the search warrant statute (section 25, tit. 2, National Prohibition Act [Comp. St. § 10138%m]), and disregarding any doubt whether the basement, by lease, had become so segregated as to lose its character as part of the dwelling, we see that the critical questions must be:
(1) Was this dwelling being used for “some business purpose such as a store, shop, saloon, etc.”?
(2) Was this dwelling being used “for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor”?
If either question can rightly be answered in the affirmative, the warrant was lawful; otherwise, not.
We pass the first question by without intimation of opinion, and go to the second. In our judgment the stated circumstances tended to show that the dwelling was being used for the sale of liquor, within a liberal but permissible scope of definition; and in defining the terms used in this statute it is not to be forgotten that section 3 of title 2 of the act (Comp. St. § 10138%aa) directs that “all the provisions of this act shall be liberally construed, to the end that the use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage may be prevented.”
We cannot assume that any sales were being completed in the dwelling as if over a counter, with simultaneous delivery and payment; but commercial sales regularly prosecuted involve, not only manufacture, but storage, ready for delivery to purchasers, as well as the soliciting of orders, the delivery from the storage place to the purchasers who call for it, or the carrying to another delivery point, and the maintenance of a headquarters for supervising the selling business. From the facts here stated it is fairly probable that the four automobile operators were buying at this brewery and delivering and reselling on their own account — at least as probable as that they were in the employ of the manufacturers. The yard and the premises just outside of the house were certainly being used for the delivery of the goods, either to the purchasers or on the way to the purchasers. The manufactured product was doubtless more or less in storage within the dwelling for the purpose of sale, whether title passed to purchasers within the dwelling or later. «Under these circumstances we have no hesitation in concluding that it could be rightly said that the dwelling was being used for “the purpose of sale.”
The search warrant was directed to (among others) the assistants and agents of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It was executed and returned by one who signed as “Federal Prohibition Agent.” The service was sufficiently regular. We take -judicial notice that a prohibition agent is an assistant and agent of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the enforcement of the National Prohibition Act, being Comp. St. § 10138¼ et seq. Crinnan v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 643, 645.
We have assumed that the affidavit and the warrant are accurately described in the opinion of the District Judge. They have not properly been made any part of the record for review.
All the judgments are 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