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:
EPPENAUER et al. v. OHIO OIL CO. COMPTON et al. v. SAME.
Nos. 8519, 8630.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 2, 1938.
Dan Moody, of Austin, Tex., C. W. Trueheart, of San Antonio, Tex., Robert G. Hughes and D. B. Hardeman, both of San Angelo, Tex., and Ed. M. Whitaker, of Midland, Tex., for appellants.
• William Pannill, of Houston, Tex., for appellee.
R. G. Hughes and D. B. Hardeman, both of San Angelo, ‘ Tex., Ed. M. Whitaker and Jno. Perkins, both of Midland, Tex., and Robert E. Cunningham, of El Paso, Tex., for appellants.
William Pannill and R. C. Gwilliam, both of Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing denied Sept. 20, 1938.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
These two cases were argued separately but may be conveniently disposed of by one opinion as the facts are to some extent similar and both are controlled by the same principles of law. The suits were brought originally by Marathon Oil Co., to quiet its title and possession under certain oil and gas leases covering large tracts of land in Pecos County, Texas; to remove clouds upon its title and for injunctions to prevent further acts of defendant of a similar nature. Later Ohio Oil Co., appellee, acquired all the rights of Marathon Oil Co. and was substituted as plaintiff in its stead. There was judgment for plaintiff in both cases.
There is no doubt the suits were cognizable in equity. Applications for surveys, the field notes resulting therefrom and the assignments of the rights of the parties, hereafter referred to, were all officially of record and constituted clouds upon plaintiff’s titles. No patents issued until after the suits were begun. As to the few that were then granted collusion is charged between employees of the Land Office and the parties in interest. Jurisdiction of the court properly attached in both suits on the ground of diversity of citizenship and sufficient amount in controversy.
Under the laws of Texas any person discovering an unsurveyed area of free school land, not so listed on the records of the Land Office and not in actual conflict on the ground with land previously sold or appropriated, may apply to the county surveyor to have the land surveyed. After the field notes of the survey are returned to the Land Office, approved and filed with the State Land Commissioner, the applicant has a preference right for 60 days thereafter to purchase a mineral lease on the land from the' State. Chapter 271, Acts of the Texas Legislature, 1931, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.Tex. art. 5421c.
In No. 8519 the suit is against A. R. Eppenauer, H. W. Compton, Bob Reid, Mrs. Pearl Norris, H. E. Christie, S. J. Brendel, and some seven other persons, who have not appealed. The bill alleged that plaintiff is the owner in possession under mineral leases, of large tracts of land in Pecos County, Texas, described generally as the I. & G. N. Ry. Co. Surveys Nos. 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65; the T. I. & Mfg. Co. Survey No. 545; a part of the Runnels County School Land Survey No. 3; Sections 30 and 32 of Block 194 G. C. & S. F. Ry. Survey; 1767.5 acres granted to I. G. Yates under certificate No. 12341 and 446.9 acres in the I. G. Yates Survey 34%. The bill further alleged that Eppenauer and other named defendants had filed applications for surveys, contending that certain parcels of land belonging to plaintiff in said surveys, were vacant free school land; had assigned rights thereunder to others; and that there were no vacancies in the land covered by plaintiff’s leases. Plaintiff contends that its title to the land it now holds under mineral leases has been judicially determined by the Supreme Court of Texas in the cases of Turner v. Smith, 122 Tex. 338, 61 S.W.2d 792, and Douglas Oil Co. v. State of Texas, California Case, 122 Tex. 377, 61 S.W.2d 807 in which the State recovered 561 acres of land, covered by the terms of its leases, as vacant.
In No. 8630 the suit was brought against H. W. Compton, Bob Reid, W. H. Bland and some 12 other persons who have not appealed. The bill alleged that plaintiff is the owner of oil and gas leases on land generally described as sections 31 and 33 of Block 194 G. C. & S. F. Ry. Co. Survey; Fred Turner, Jr.’s Surveys, Nos. 1 to 6 inclusive; 446.9 acres of the I. G. Yates’ Survey 34%. In other respects the allegations are similar to those in suit No. 8519., Plaintiff also relies in this case on the decisions in Turner v. Smith and Douglas Oil Co. v. State of Texas, supra.
The records are so voluminous in both cases that it would be practically impossible to make a condensed statement of the facts appearing in detail in the transcripts. It is sufficient to say that the district court found as facts in both cases, after a careful review of the evidence, that no vacancies as contended by defendants existed. The district court also held that any person now seeking to acquire rights to vacant land from the State within the lines of survey fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Texas above cited, is bound under the doctrine of stare decisis obtaining in Texas.
The case of Turner v. Smith et al., 122 Tex. 338, 61 S.W.2d 792, was begun by Turner in a district court of the state in an action to mandamus the county surveyor to make a survey under the provisions of Art." 5323 .of the Revised Statutes, now superseded by Chapter 271 of 1931, above quoted. The surveyor impleaded Mrs. A. G. Smith and I. G. Yates, parties from whom plaintiff obtained leases. The Attorney General- of Texas attempted to intervene' for the State, praying for a judgment decreeing the area described in plaintiff’s petition to be vacant public free school land. This intervention was wrongfully stricken from the record. See Camp v. Gulf Production Co., 122 Tex. 383, 61 S.W.2d 773. Judgment rendered in favor of Turner by the district court was,, reversed by a court of Civil Appeals, Smith v. Turner, 13 S.W.2d 152. The Supreme Court reversed this judgment and reinstated the judgment of the district court. After the decision of the Supreme Court, the State of Texas, through its Attorney General, brought suit for the benefit of Turner, to recover the land in controversy for him. The case of Turner v. Smith was submitted and argued together with two other cases, Douglas Oil Co. v. State of Texas, California Case, 122 Tex. 377, 61 S.W.2d 807 and Douglas Oil Co. v. State of Texas, Whiteside Case, 122 Tex. 369, 61 S.W.2d 804. Both of the Douglas Oil- Co. Cases were begun by the state of Texas, through the Attorney General, by actions in trespass to try title to recover land alleged to be vacant, for the benefit of the state.
The form in which these suits were brought is immaterial. They were in fact boundary suits. The Supreme Court in the cases above cited considered the various conflicting surveys within which the land covered by plaintiff’s leases is located and fixed the correct lines on the ground. Plaintiff’s title has therefore been validated by the Supreme Court of Texas. Under the doctrine of stare decisis obtaining in Texas all parties thereafter claiming vacancies in conflict with the decisions of the Supreme Court are bound by them whether parties to the suits or not. This is the settled law of Texas, which we are bound to follow. Texas Jurisprudence, Vol. 26 § 368 and authorities cited therein.
We concur in the conclusions of the district court. The records present no reversible error. In each case the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
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: 99