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:
MACABOY v. UNITED STATES.
No. 9287.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.
Argued Jan. 23, 1917.
Decided Feb. 24, 1947.
Mr. John L. Ingoldsby, Jr., of Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant.
Mr. John D. Lane, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, and Arthur J. McLaughlin, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney at the time the record was filed, and Sidney S. Sachs, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and CLARK and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.
CLARK, Associate Justice.
Charles A. Macaboy appeals from a verdict and judgment of guilty on six counts of an indictment charging him with violation of the Harrison Narcotic Act and the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act. The case follows the same pattern as Dear Check Quong v. United States, - U.S. App.D.C. -, 160 F.2d 251, and Thomas Higgins v. United States,-U.S.App.D.C. -, 160 F.2d 222. Here, as in those cases, the only evidence presented by the prosecution was the testimony of the narcotic agent, who, on three occasions, had searched an informer employed by the government, given him money with instructions to make a purchase, followed the informer, keeping him always in sight, observed the transactions between the informer and appellant, and then received from the informer the packages containing the drug.
Appellant’s first point, which challenges the sufficiency of this evidence to sustain the conviction, is disposed of by our decisions in the Quong and Higgins cases wherein we held that “evidence to this effect, if believed by the jury, as it was, was sufficient to justify the verdict of guilty.”
Appellant further contends that the court below erred in failing to instruct the jury with respect to circumstantial evidence and the standards which must be met by such evidence in order to warrant conviction although he made no request for such an instruction. He maintains, however, that the better rule is that the defendant is entitled to such instruction as a matter of right without request and cites decisions of several state courts in support of this rule. Appellant also recognizes that there is considerable opposition, to the rule especially in the federal courts. It is to be noted that the states which favor the rule apply it only in cases where-the conviction is wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence and do not extend' the rule to instances where there is, as, was the case here, direct incriminatory evidence presented tending to connect defendant with the crime. Moreover, no reason is presented and none is apparent why the rule long followed in the other appellate federal courts should be departed from, by us.
Affirmed.
53 Stat. 272, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev. Code, § 2554 (a).
42 Stat. 596, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174.
Hughes v. United States, 5 Cir., 231 F. 50, certiorari denied 242 U.S. 640, 37 S.Ct. 112, 61 L.Ed. 541.
Gardner v. State, 27 Wyo. 316, 196. P. 750, 15 A.L.R. 1049.

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