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:
James J. DONOHUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14150.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Oct. 1, 1963.
Sydney M. Eisenberg, Milwaukee, Wis., Andrew F. Slaby, Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioner-appellant.
Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alan D. Pekelner, Attorney, U. S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D. C., Lee A. Jackson, Melva M. Graney, Burton Berkley, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before DUFFY, CASTLE and KILEY, Circuit Judges.
KILEY, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by taxpayer from a judgment of the Tax Court confirming Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency in taxpayer’s income tax for the year 1954.
Because the records of taxpayer’s tavern business did not “clearly reflect income,” Commissioner used a mark-up method in determining a deficiency for 1954. It is undisputed that taxpayer’s 1954 income tax return did not include as gross income the $8,392.23 embezzled from taxpayer’s tavern business in that year by John Bittner, his accountant who had been given complete control over the financial matters of the business, and that the embezzlement was not discovered by taxpayer until 1958.
The decisive issue is whether the embezzled money was taxable to taxpayer in 1954, as the Tax Court found, even though he did not then know of the embezzlement by his accountant.
Taxpayer relies upon James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 81 S.Ct. 1052, 6 L.Ed.2d 246 (1961), to support his argument that Bittner, and not the taxpayer, should be taxed upon the embezzled funds. The James case is authority for taxpayer’s argument that the embezzled money was taxable to Bittner, but not authority for the conclusion that therefore the Tax Court’s judgment against taxpayer must fall.
Taxpayer also relies upon Alsop v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 290 F.2d 726 (2d Cir. 1960). In Alsop the embezzled funds were never credited to the taxpayer’s account, nor used for taxpayer’s benefit. Here the bartender received the money, deposited it in taxpayer’s cash register, and used it in taxpayer’s business before the embezzlement. Taxpayer was given a definite economic benefit from the receipt of the money prior to its embezzlement. Also, the taxpayer in Alsop reported the em-bezzlements as losses for the years in which they were discovered, but had never reported as income the amounts embezzled. Here the issue is simply whether the moneys embezzled were income to the taxpayer in the year of receipt. These considerations distinguish Alsop.
We hold that the Tax Court did not err in deciding that the moneys embezzled by Bittner in 1954 were income to the taxpayer in that year.
The Tax Court found that the amount of additional and unreported gross income from the tavern business was “at least” $8,392.23, the deficiency assessed by the Commissioner. This finding is unchallenged. The finding was made by comparing that amount calculated by the Commissioner under the mark-up method with the sum of $7,800.00, admittedly embezzled, plus other amounts “unlawfully charged” by Bittner to the taxpayer. We think this rough approximation of the extent of Bittner’s defalcation is sufficient to establish the additional income for 1954. Tehan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 295 F.2d 895 (7th Cir. 1961). In this court the respondent conceded that the fund embezzled should be reduced by the $750.00 received by taxpayer from Bittner in 1958. The deficiency is therefore reduced by that amount and the Tax Court’s decision as modified is affirmed.
The Tax Court’s judgment is affirmed as reduced.
. “Taxpayer,” as used in this opinion, refers to James J. Donohue and Helen Donohue who filed a joint return in 1954.
. Pursuant to § 446 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code.
. See Sowell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 302 E\2d 177 (5th Cir. 1902).

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