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:
MONCURE v. ATLANTIC LIFE INS. CO.
No. 2995.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 1930.
Edward H. Horton, Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C. (Paul W. Koar, U. S. Atty., of Norfolk, Va., and C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
Andrew D. Christian, of Richmond, Va., for appellee.
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and SOPER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal in an action at law instituted in the court below to recover excess profits taxes assessed and collected for the calendar year 1917 from the Atlantic Life Insurance Company. That company is a stock life insurance company doing business on the level premium plan and issuing both participating and non-participating- policies. It is required by law to maintain a reserve of assets for the protection of its policy holders ; and the sole question involved is whether this legal reserve should be included in invested capital in the computation of its excess profits tax. We agree with the learned judge below that tho ease is controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Duffy v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., 272 U. S. 613, 47 S. Ct. 205, 71 L. Ed. 439, and cannot be distinguished on the ground that the company there was a purely mutual company, whereas the company here is a stock company. The relationship of the company and the policyholders to the reserve fund, not the right of the latter to the control and management of the company, is tho determining factor; and that relationship is the same here as it was shown to- be in the Duffy Case.
The amount paid in by policyholders and carried in the legal reserve of the company was certainly money paid in by them for shares in a common fund, a fund maintained under legal requirement for their benefit and invested for their advantage as well as for the "advantage of the company. It would thus seem to be invested capital within the clear meaning of clause 1 of section 207(a) of the Revenue Act of 1917, 40 Stat. 306. If, however, that clause be limited in meaning to money paid in by stockholders for shares of stock, then such payments, with interest earnings thereon, fall clearly within the classification of “paid-in or earned surplus” under clause 3. Nothing need be added to the able opinion filed in the cause by the judge below, and same is adopted as the opinion of this court.
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