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:
In re HOLLINS & ARROUSEZ ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING CO. ALLIS-CHALMERS MFG. CO. v. MOORE et al.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
February 25, 1929.
No. 5644.
Ray Howard and A. S. Gold, both of Los Angeles, Cal. (Nathan Silk, of Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel),.for appellant.
Rupert B. Turnbull, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Before RUDKIN and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges, and BEAN, District Judge.
BEAN, District Judge.
This is a proceeding by the Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company to recover possession or impress an equitable lien on the assets of the bankrupt firm of Hollins & Arrousez Electric & Engineering Company.
Por some time prior to September 22, 1926, the bankrupt had been engaged in the business of manufacturing, buying, selling, and renting electrical machines and equipment, and in the production and sale of moving pictures. On September 22, 1926, they made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, and were adjudged bankrupts on January 24, 1927. Por some time prior to the assignment they had been buying electrical machines of the petitioner, and, after making certain additions thereto, reselling them to the general public. There are six sets of such machines or appliances involved in this controversy. Pive of them were sold by the petitioner to the bankrupt at divers times between December 28, 1925, and May 2,1926, on conditional sales contracts, by the terms of which the vendor retained the title until the evidence of indebtedness given in part payment was paid in full. The other set, referred to in the record as the Cohn set, was shipped by the petitioner from its factory at Milwaukee, Wis., to the bankrupt at Los Angeles, and received by them some time prior to July, 1926.
On July 29 of that year a proposed contract for this machine, similar in terms to that covering the other machines, was offered the bankrupt by the local representative of the petitioner, and accepted by them, but it was not approved by the home office at Milwaukee. In the meantime the bankrupt, after mounting the machine on a trailer and adding other electrical equipment thereto, sold the complete machine, receiving about $19,-000 therefor, which amount was deposited by them to their credit in their general banking account and used by them in the general conduct of their business prior to the making of the assignment in September of 1926. There is no evidence that any part of such amount or the proceeds thereof were in the bankrupt’s estate at the time of the adjudication, or that such estate is enhanced thereby. The bankrupt, with the consent and approval of the petitioner, sold the other five sets, without having first paid the purchase price thereof, to various parties taking conditional sales contracts in their own names, similar in form to that between the petitioner and the bankrupt, receiving from the purchasers (except Cecil B. Mille Company, corporation) cash or commercial paper payable to them for the deferred payments, and the cash and the proceeds from the commercial paper, which they discounted, deposited by the bankrupt in their general banking account, and used by them in the conduct of their business prior to September, 1926. The sale to the Ceeil B. Mille Company was made in March, 1926, and the bankrupt received, as part of the purchase price, machinery or applicances of the approximate value of $6,000. The petitioner, however, permitted this machinery to remain in the possession of the bankrupt, and to be treated by them as their property, and it passed to the creditors' committee under the assignment in September, 1926. At the time of the adjudication the bankrupt was indebted in excess of $400,000 and had assets of the value of less than $100,000.
The special master and the court held that under these facts the petitioner was not entitled to any part of the assets of the bankrupt or an equitable lien thereon, and hence this appeal.
The petitioner claims that the amounts received by the bankrupt for the sale of the property in question was in the nature of a trust fund, and received for the use and benefit of the petitioner. It therefore invokes the general rule that, where property has been wrongfully obtained or applied, a court of equity will intervene to secure it to the owner, if it can be identified or traced into any other shape, by holding it to be his property or giving him a lien thereon. Central Nat. Bank v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co., 104 U. S. 56, 26 L. Ed. 693; In re Dunn & Co. (D. C.) 193 F. 212. But, assuming that the vendee of property under a conditional sales contract who sells it without the' consent of the owner and before paying the purchase price, or one who wrongfully converts the property of another by selling it, receives the proceeds thereof in trust for the owner, the rule invoked by the petitioner has no application to the facts of the instant ease. The five sets were sold by the bankrupt and the proceeds received and used by them as their own property, with the knowledge, consent, and approval of the petitioner, for the reason, as the agent testified, that he considered the bankrupt “then in good financial condition,” and therefore did not take an assignment of the contracts from the purchasers, although the bankrupt was ready and willing to make sueh assignment. The petitioner therefore waived any right which it might have to, or lien on, the proceeds received by the bankrupt from the sale of the five sets, and at the time of the adjudication stood in the position of a creditor of the bankrupt for the amount remaining .due on the original contract between it and the bankrupt.
It is true the agent testified that it was the understanding between him and the bankrupt at the time the sales were made that the proceeds should be held by the bankrupt for the petitioner, but this is. wholly inconsistent with the acts of the parties, and, if there was such an agreement, it was clearly waived or abrogated by their subsequent conduct.
There is no evidence that any part of the money received by the bankrupt from the sale of the Cohn set, or the proceeds thereof, was a part of the assets of the bankrupt at the time of the adjudication, either in specie or in changed form. It may be that, when trust funds are wrongfully mingled by the trustee with his own, a court of equity will, for the purpose of doing justice under circumstances not here present, treat the whole as a trust fund, and intervene to protect the owner by giving him a lien on the entire fund, if the trust fund can be traced into it, but the burden of- proof is upon the one claiming such a right, and, if he is unable to identify the funds as representing the proceeds of his property, his claim must fail. First Nat. Bank of Princeton v. Littlefield, 226 U. S. 110, 33 S. Ct. 78, 57 L. Ed. 145; Schuyler v. Littlefield, 232 U. S. 707, 34 S. Ct. 466, 58 L. Ed. 806; Bogert on Trust, p. 521. Such a lien cannot be impressed on property which is not shown to have been enhanced or augmented by the unlawful application. 37 C. J. 320.
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: 1