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:
GOLDSMITH et al. v. BUCKET.
No. 5654.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Argued Feb. 14, 1033.
Decided March 27, 1933.
Rehearing Denied April 7, 1933.
Alvin L. Newmyer, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Webster Ballinger, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff (appellee here) in the Supreme Court of the District upon a verdict of a jury in an action to recover a real estate commission.
The evidence for the plaintiff was substantially as follows: Prior to September, 1927, premises No. 1316 Sixteenth Street, N. W., in the District, were owned by the Wardman Construction Company, and wore leased through plaintiff, a real estate broker, to a Miss Gurnee for a period of two years at an annual rental of $6,000, tenancy to begin September 25,1927. The lease contained a provision that the lessee might purchase the p remises at any time during the term of the lease for the sum of $85,000, payable one-third in cash and the balance on or before three years. There was a clause in the lease authorizing the lessee to pay the monthly installment of rent at the office of plaintiff, and on the margin of the lease was a typewritten statement that a commission of 5 per cent, for rentals collected was to bo paid to plaintiff as agent.
In November, 1927, the defendants purchased the premises from the Wardman Company, and the Gurnee lease was assigned to them. On December 7th, following, defendants notified plaintiff by letter that they had purchased the premises and that rent should thereafter he remitted to them. On the next day plaintiff' delivered a cheek for rent to defendants, and Goldsmith, for defendants’ firm, said to plaintiff: “You procured the lease of this property with its option to purchase. We wish you would take this matter up wiih your client and see if you cannot induce her to exereise her option. If she will do so we will reduce the price to $75,000. If a sale is made by you we will pay you the usual commission.” Shortly thereafter (i. e., shortly after December 8th) plaintiff took up the matter with Miss Gurnee and then telephoned Goldsmith that she was interested in tlie property at the reduced price, but that she would not be able to give a definite answer until she had had an opportunity to test the heating plant of the house and determine whether the house was comfortable in severe cold weather. lie requested certain data from Goldsmith, but not receiving it, he sent a letter on December 27th to defendants’ firm requesting “that the terms, taxes, trusts, and price be confirmed to me by letter as the prospective client is interested and requests this accurate data.”
To this letter he received no reply. He did not communicate further with defendants. Asked when he next talked with Miss Gurnee, he answered: “I can’t state exactly but I had several conversations with her.” He “could'not state when the talks occurred; that later in the winter, and after there had been a severe cold spell, he endeavored to get in touch with Miss Gurnee several times but was informed each time that she was out of the city; that the next he heard of the matter was the receipt of a letter dated March 28, 1928, signed by Miss Gurnee and addressed to him, the body of which was as follows: ‘In ease you should not have heard, this is to inform you-I have bought this house —so I am not defaulting on the rent. Thanking you for all your kindness and courtesy during my renting period, believe me,’ ” etc. Upon investigation plaintiff discovered that the defendant had accepted a contract submitted through the Wardman Company, as agent, for the sale of the property to Miss Gurnee at a reduced price of $64,500; that the sale was consummated about March 16, 1928. The contract for the sale of the property to Miss Gurnee provided for the payment to the Wardman Company of a commission. The settlement sheet of the title company through which the sale was consummated showed the payment of a commission to “Wardman and Elmer Dyer” of $2,-035, the usual commission.
Plaintiff rested his case; whereupon defendants moved for a directed verdict, which was overruled.
Defendants then introduced evidence to the following effect: After purchasing the property they listed it for sale with about a dozen real estate agents, including the Ward-man Company. That Mr. Dyer of that company brought them a contract signed by Miss Gurnee, in which she agreed to purchase the property for $64,500, which was less than the quoted price, but which they finally accepted. The regular real estate commission was paid to the Wardman Company; that they did not know Buckey in connection with the sale.
Dyer testified that he had known Miss Gurnee when she resided at the Wardman Park Hotel while he was its manager; that immediately upon the purchase of the property from the Wardman Company by defendants, he informed them that he’thought he could sell the property to Miss Gurnee at the option price; they authorized him to sell the property. That after seeing Miss Gurnee about a dozen times he finally persuaded her to make a written offer, which she did in the contract of February 28, 1928.' The regular commission was paid by defendants; “that he never saw Buckey in connection with the deal and that Miss Gurnee had told him she was not interested in buying the property at the price named in the option, or at $75,000. * « * • kad no knowledge while he was endeavoring to induce Miss Gurnee to purchase that Buckey was endeavoring to sell it to her.”
Defendants then rested, and again moved for a directed verdict, which motion was overruled.
Plaintiff was one of several agents operating on an equal basis. In such circumstances a purchaser may be negotiating with different authorized agents of the owner and, if so, the agent is entitled to the commission who first brings to the owner a contract satisfactory to him and which the owner accepts, provided there has been no bad faith. Daniel v. Columbia Heights Land Co., 9 App. D. C. 483; Evans v. Shinn, 40 App. D. C. 557; Taylor v. Maddux, Marshall & Co., 55 App. D. C. 254, 4 F.(2d) 447.
Shortly after defendants purchased the premises on December 8, 1927, plaintiff “had several conversations!” with Miss Gurnee, “who was interested in the property at the reduced price” ($75,000). Plaintiff’s efforts thereafter were confined to an endeavor “to get in touch with Miss Gurnee * * *, but was informed each time that she was out of the city.” Meanwhile the Wardman Company, through Dyer, on February 28, 1928, more than two months later, obtained from Miss Gurnee an offer to purchase the premises, which offer was accepted by defendants, and the regular commission paid the agent.
There is not the slightest evidence of bad faith on the part of defendants. The burden of proof was on the plaintiff, and yet he did not produce Miss Gurnee as a witness nor account for his failure to do so. As was said in Taylor v. Maddux, Marshall & Co., 55 App. D. C. 254, 4 F.(2d) 447, 448: “Taking the plaintiff’s ease in its most favorable light, it amounted merely to a competition between* two agents for the sale of the premises. * * * It is a ease where the first one of two agents presenting a contract satisfactory to the owner is entitled to the commission, and the other agent, regardless of what service may have been rendered, is without remedy.”
Reversed, with costs.
Reversed.

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