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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John Thomas DAVIDSON, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 7564.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
July 2, 1970.
Harvey A. Silverglate, Boston, Mass., with whom Flym, Zalkind & Silverglate, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellant.
Willie J. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Herbert F. Travers, Jr., U. S. Atty., and James B. Krasnoo, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, admittedly an illegal dealer in narcotics, was convicted of violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) for selling heroin without receiving the order form thereby required. His sole ground of appeal is that section 4705(a) violates the Tenth Amendment. Concededly, no Fifth Amendment rights are involved. Minor v. United States, 1969, 396 U.S. 87, 90 S.Ct. 284, 24 L.Ed.2d 283.
Basically, defendant asserts that since, as an illegal dealer, he was not obliged to pay the occupational tax imposed by section 4721, and no tax was due from the buyer, there was no federal purpose to be served by the form, and hence no federal right to require it. In 1928 the Court in Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332, 48 S.Ct. 388, 72 L.Ed. 600, upheld the constitutionality of the order form requirement as to unregistered sellers on the ground that it aided in the collection of excise and occupational taxes imposed by the federal narcotics act. Defendant notes, correctly, that illegal dealers were then subject to the occupational tax, and argues that since now they are not, Nigro is inapplicable and we must reach a different result.
We do not agree. It does not follow that because the defendant is exempt from the occupational tax, federal tax collection is not aided by the information sought in the order form. In the first place, although the defendant seller may not have been subject to the section 4721 tax, his supplier may have been a lawful importer who had neglected to pay his own occupational tax. Secondly, the sale may have involved narcotics subject to the excise tax, 26 U.S.C. § 4701, due from the original importer or manufacturer, but unpaid. In either case the information supplied on the order form might set in motion a chain of inquiry directly related to the collection of federal taxes. See Nigro, ante, at 347, 48 S.Ct. 388.
Beyond this, we think the government has a valid interest in obtaining, information for less immediate purposes. It may wish to know, for example, how much revenue it sacrificed by its exemption of unlawful dealers, with an eye to reinstating the tax. It may want to consider a new type of taxation. We cannot believe that Congress lacks the authority to gather such information. It would be difficult to think, for example, that the informational return required from private foundations by the 1969 Tax Reform Act is unenforcible except to the extent related to present exemptions. Defendant does not advance his case by suggesting that our speculations have not been verified, and the actual motives of Congress may be something different. Cf. Watkins v. United States, 1957, 354 U.S. 178, 200, 77 S.Ct. 1173, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273.
Affirmed.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

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