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 ROUMANIAN WORKERS EDUCATIONAL ASS’N OF AMERICA. ROUMANIAN WORKERS EDUCATIONAL ASS’N OF AMERICA v. POPOVICH.
No. 8332.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 15, 1940.
Thomas L.i Poindexter and Isaac M. Smullin, both of Detroit, Mich. (Isaac M. Smullin, Fred G. Dewey, and Thos. L. Poindexter, all of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.
Allan M. Thompson, of Detroit, Mich. (Leroy Payne and Allan M. Thompson, both of Detroit, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ARANT, Circuit Judges.
HICKS, Circuit Judge.
Appeal by Roumanian Workers Educational Association of America from an order entered on April 17, 1939, denying motions, to vacate its adjudication in bankruptcy, and to dismiss the bankruptcy proceedings. An involuntary petition was filed against appellant on January 25, 1938. After an extended hearing appellant was adjudicated a bankrupt on November 30, 1938, and on January 30, 1939, the court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On March 10, 1939, appellant, represented by certain counsel, filed its motion to set aside the adjudication and dismiss the proceedings, upon various grounds. On March 27, 1939, appellant, represented by different counsel, filed a similar motion upon three additional grounds. On April 17, 1939, the court denied both motions. In its order it stated, that all of the grounds of the first motion, and all save one, of the second, had been decided adversely to the bankrupt in the order of adjudication. An examination of the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law above referred to convinces us that this is true.
There was no appeal from the order of adjudication. But the one matter raised by the motion on March 27, 1939, which had not been previously decided, could 6e raised after the expiration of the time for appealing, because it presented a question of jurisdiction, i. e., whether appellant was subject to involuntary bankruptcy at ail.
The evidence introduced at the hearing before the District Court is not in the record and in determining the question of jurisdiction we áre controlled by the facts found. The court found that appellant was organized as a non-profit corporation under Act No. 171, Michigan Public Acts of 1903, for the propagation of socialism among the Roumanian workers of the country; but non-profit corporations are not expressly excluded from the operation of Sec. 4, sub. b, of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 22, sub. b. The susceptibility of appellant to bankruptcy does not depend altogether upon its charter. In Re Supreme Lodge of the Masons Annuity, D.C., 286 F. 180, at page 184, it was said: “The true rule is that the charter is first to be looked to in classifying the corporation, but that the business really done, and which is to be administered in bankruptcy, may also be looked to either to explain or rebut the inferences from the charter powers.”
In Re Kingston Realty Co., 2 Cir., 160 F. 445, at page 446, it was said that whether a corporation “can be adjudged a bankrupt depends upon what it actually does, not what it is empowered to do.”
Appellant was created and began functioning in 1917 but the court found that in 1922 it, “ * * * bought a printing plant and from that time it devoted itself to commercial activities and entered into commerce in an established field, viz: the operation of a job printing plant and in the printing and publishing business general in competition with other printing plants in the City of Detroit. Several years before the filing of the involuntary petition in bankruptcy, said alleged bankrupt, filed a Trade Name Certificate with the County Clerk for the County of Wayne, in which county it then, and at the time of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy herein was doing business, in which Trade Name Certificate it stated its intention, ‘to own, conduct, or transact business in the City of Detroit, under the name of Anchor Printing Company.’ Said trade name was continued to be used by it up to and including the date of the. filing of the involuntary petition in bankruptcy. In addition to said job printing work, said alleged bankrupt, published a weekly newspaper in the Roumanian language, known as ‘Desteptarea.’ It likewise published, each year, a so-called year-book or Almanac, for which said yearbook, said newspaper and for all its printing work, said alleged bankrupt made a charge. Said year-book and said newspaper contained advertisements for .all of which a charge was made.”
The court further found that at least 90% of appellant’s activities were of a commercial and business nature, and decided that Upon the facts appellant, on the date of the commission of the act of bankruptcy, and of the filing of the involuntary petition against it, was “a business and commercial corporation within the purview of the National Bankruptcy Act.”
We find no reason to disagree with this conclusion [Schuster v. Ohio Farmers’ Co-op Milk Ass’n, 6 Cir., 61 F.2d 337] and the order appealed from is 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