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:
KELEHER v. KELEHER (three cases).
Nos. 10647-10649.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 23, 1951.
Decided July 5, 1951.
James J. Laughlin, Washington, D. C., for Anna T. Keleher. Albert J. Ahern, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance on behalf of Anna T. Keleher.
Alvin L. Newmyer, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Alvin L. Newmyer, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for John B. Keleher.
Before PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges, and LEDERLE, District Judge (sitting by designation).
PER CURIAM.
Mrs. Keleher appeals from the decree of divorce granted her husband by reason of her desertion, and from the denial of her petition for a limited divorce based on his cruelty. In this aspect of the litigation we find no error, and the action of the District Court will to that extent be affirmed. We likewise affirm the action of the District Court in awarding counsel fees to Mrs. Keleher.
Mr. Keleher appeals from an award of alimony and property to his wife, as reflected in the following conclusion of law reached by the trial court:
“2. The plaintiff, as husband of the defendant, should be required to pay her the lump sum of $60,000.00 as final permanent alimony in lieu of and in release of all her claims and rights against plaintiff and his estate. This lump sum of $60,000.00 to be paid as final permanent alimony shall be additional to and beyond the $60,000.00 taken from the joint safe deposit boxes by defendant and retained as above mentioned, and the said $60,000.00 so taken from said safe deposit boxes and retained by defendant shall, by virtue of the judgment of the Court in this action, become and continue to be the property of the defendant solely.”
With regard to the second item mentioned, it appears that while her husband was absent from the city, just prior to their final separation, Mrs. Keleher opened two safe deposit boxes held in their joint names and removed therefrom funds belonging to her husband in the amount of $60,000.00. There was no claim by Mrs. Keleher that she owned these funds. The action of the trial court with respect to these abstracted funds, when coupled with the award of $60,000.00 in lump sum alimony, amounted to a grant to the wife of a total of $120,000.00: “a sum,” to quote the court, “which is in excess of 35% of the total value of * * * [the husband’s] property, as established by the record in this cause of action.” (Finding of Fact No. 6)
Subsequent ho this action by the District Court, we rendered our decision in Wheeler v. Wheeler, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 193, 188 F.2d 31, 33, where we said that “absent some right or element of ownership, legal or equitable, on the part of the wife, in property of the husband, it is error for the court to order the transfer of that property to her.” While the question then before us related to real property, we think that the same underlying reasoning precludes the sort of division of the husband’s funds and other property which was ordered in this case. We recognize the power of the trial court, in the exercise of discretion, to make awards of a character reasonably to be included in the concept of support and maintenance. Quarles v. Quarles, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 41, 179 F.2d 57. But the right to support is not the right to endowment, and the present award falls clearly in the latter category. Alimony is intended as a means of carrying out the husband’s obligation to provide support; its amount must be measured by tests bearing a sound relationship to that objective; and .it cannot be used as a device ‘for dividing up the husband’s property.
We will accordingly remand this aspect, of the case to the District Court for reconsideration of its action, and for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
No. 10647 and No. 10649 are affirmed; No. 10648 is affirmed in part, reversed in. part and remanded.
. No. 10649.
. No. 10647.
. No. 10648, in which Mr. Keleher is the appellant.
. No. 10648, supra, note 3.
. We added in the same ease that “the court may adjudicate the property rights of the spouses, and award the wife property which belongs to her”: citing Reilly v. Reilly, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 182 F.2d 108.

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