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:
F. HOFFMAN & SONS, Inc., v. H. B. HUNTER CO., Inc.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 12, 1928.
Decided March 5, 1928.
No. 2016.
Trade-marks, and trade-names and unfair competition <@=»45i/2 — Registration of “eHOBO” as trade-mark for soft drinks will be canceled as confusingly similar to “Choco-Sip.”
One producing nonalcoholic, maltless, carbonated beverages, sold as soft drinks under trade-mark “Choco-Sip,” held entitled to have cancellation of registration of trade-mark “GHOGO” on substantially identical goods, on ground that marks were confusingly similar.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Suit by F. Hoffman & Sons, Inc., against the H. B. Hunter Company, Inc., to secure the cancellation of the registration of a trade-mark. From the decision of the Commissioner, reversing that of the Examiner of Interferences, and refusing cancellation, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
D. U. Rich and C. R. Allen, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
W. L. Symons, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, YAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
YAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
This is a trade-mark cancellation proceeding, brought by appellant company, to seeure the cancellation of the registration of the word “6H0G0” as a trade-mark for nonalcoholic, maltless, carbonated beverages, sold as soft drinks. The petitioner claims that it is damaged by use of the mark through confusion with its registered trade-mark “Choco-Sip.”
Priority is conceded petitioner in the use of its mark. It is not denied that the goods of the respective parties are substantially identical. The only question for determination is whether or not the trade-marks are confusingly similar, within the meaning of the statute.
The Examiner of Interferences found that the marks were so similar as to be likely to lead to confusion, and directed the cancellation of appellee company’s registration. This decision was reversed by the Commissioner of Patents, and from his decision this appeal was taken.
We find little difficulty in sustaining the decision of the Examiner. The suffix “Sip” indicates a beverage, and the prefix “Choco” indicates the quality of beverage. The evidence discloses that “Choeo-Sip” is frequently ordered by the name “Choco.” We are not impressed with the contention that the hyphen marks in “CHOCO” distinguish the word either in pronunciation or appearance to the extent of removing the probability of confusion. The manner in which the word is written leave the hyphens obscure and unimportant factors in the make-up of the mark. As said by the Examiner: “Especially is this true when it is considered that the letter spacing in respondent’s trade-mark is not substantially different from that of a word in which no hyphens appear.”
In view of the evidence as to probable confusion, and also from the close similarity of the marks, we are convinced that the conclusion reached bj the Commissioner is erroneous.
The decision of the Commissioner is 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