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:
NORTH TEXAS LUMBER CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 15, 1929.
No. 5318.
Joseph J. Eckford, of Dallas, Tex. (Paul T. McMahon, of Dallas, Tex., on the brief), for petitioner.
Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key and Randolph C. Shaw, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., and C. M. Charest, General Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Thos. P. Dudley, Jr., Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C. (Shelby S. Faulkner, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
In this case tbe material facts as found by tbe Board of Tax Appeals are these:
Petitioner, a Texas corporation, negotiated with tbe Southern Pine Company for the sale of certain timberlands, in 1916. On December 27, 1916, tbe price was agreed upon and tbe purchaser was satisfied as to the title. The purchaser was solvent, but required a few days to borrow some $200,000 to complete tbe purchase. An option was granted for ten days, tbe loan was arranged, and tbe purchaser telegraphed petitioner on December 30, 1916, that it would exercise tbe option and was prepared to complete the purchase. Petitioner agreed at once, but the deed was not delivered until January 5,1917.
Petitioner’s books are kept on the accrual basis. Petitioner allocated tbe profit from tbe sale to tbe year 1916 and made a supplementary return to that, effect. Tbe Commissioner of Internal Revenue, however, found tbe profit to be $79,057.95, allocated it to tbe year 1917, in which year it was collected, and determined a deficiency of taxés for that year of $19,733.90. On appeal the Board approved the aetion of the Commissioner. This, we think, was error.
Profits accrue when they are fixed and an enforceable liability is created. Allen v. Armstrong, 58 App. Div. 427, 68 N. Y. S. 1079; Holmes, Federal Taxes (6th Ed.) p. 1248. Of course, delivery of the deed was necessary to vest legal title in the purchaser, but between the parties the transaction was complete and their rights vested on December 30, 1916. Petitioner could on that day have tendered tbe deed and demanded payment and, if refused, could have maintained a suit for tbe purchase price. Tbe subsequent delivery of tbe deed and collection of tbe purdíase price did not change conditions as they existed on December 30, 1916, as to the amount of profit derived from tho sale or its accrual.
Regardless of when the purchase money was paid, as petitioner kop1' books and made returns on the accrual basis, he was obliged to allocate tho profit from the transaction to tho year 1916. During that year all tho events necessary to fix the amount of tho profit had occurred. This conclusion finds support in the reasoning of the court in U. S. v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 423-441, 46 S. Ct. 131, 70 L. Ed. 347, in which it was held that taxes on munitions manufactured in 1916 for which a reserve had been set up should bo deducted as an expense of that year, although paid in 1917. The same reasoning applies to profits earned in one year though not actually received until the following year, when tho books are kept on the accrual basis. See Am. Nat. Co., Receiver, v. U. S., 274 U. S. 99, 47 S. Ct. 520, 71 L. Ed. 946.
The petition is granted, and the judgment 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