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:
ROSE v. ROSE et al.
No. 11947.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 23, 1947.
WALLER, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Irwin Geiger, of Washington, D. C., and Thomas Y. Minniece, of Meridian, Miss., for appellant.
E. L. Snow and J. A. Covington, Jr., both of Meridian, Miss., for appellees.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment sustaining a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Such motion admitted all of the well-pleaded facts.
The complaint alleges that appellant was a partner of one of the defendants in the retail jewelry business, and that he received notice in 1942 to report for induction into the armed forces of the United States; that the defendants and each of them “thereupon agreed, conspired, and confederated together to oust plaintiff from his partnership” and wrongfully to force him to transfer his interest therein to certain of the defendants. It alleges how, upon the eve of his induction, the scheme was tortiously accomplished and how he was forced to sell his interest for a “negligible fraction” of its true value; that he entered the military service in February, 1942, and continued therein on active duty until March, 1946, when he was honorably discharged after prolonged service in the battle areas of the Pacific.
During his absence overseas, it is alleged, the said jewelry business earned a net profit of upwards of $200,000, of which, but for his wrongful and coercive ouster, the appellant would have been entitled to and would have received one-half. The complaint is in two counts; in the first, he seeks to recover both actual and punitive damages; in the second, he prays that the interest in the partnership business acquired from him he impressed with a trust for his benefit, and for such further relief as may be proper.
Upon these facts, under count one, we think the appellant stated an action for duress of goods under circumstances of great hardship, and is entitled to have his damages assessed by a jury unless an answer is Sled denying the averments or otherwise presenting an issue of fact.
Prima facie every partnership is determinable at will; and, since there is no allegation as to its duration, we presume that this one was so determinable; but the motion and judgment below dealt with the complaint in its entirety, and it is unnecessary for us to decide more at this time than that the court erred in its dismissal of the entire suit. Counts one and two do not differ as to the facts alleged, but only in that different and -inconsistent remedies are sought, one of a legal and the other of an equitable nature.
The judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Hawkins v. Ellis, 168 Mass. 428, 151 So. 569, 570; 14 C.J.S., Coercion, p. 1307; 17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 175, p. 533.
“It has been held that restraint of goods under circumstances of hardship will avoid a contract; [Collins v. Westbury], 2 Bay [S.C.], 211 [1 Am.Dec. 643]; [Ripley v. Gelston], 9 Johns. 201 [6 Am. Dec. 271]; [Elliott v. Swartwout], 10 Pet. 137, [9 L.Ed. 373]; [Spaids v. Barrett], 57 Ill. 289 [11 Am.Rep. 10] ; [Chandler v. Sanger], 114 Mass. 364 [19 Am.Rep. 367] ; [City of Philadelphia v. Miskey], 68 Pa. 49; [Adams v. Reeves], 68 N.C. 134 [12 Am.Rep. 627]; [Radich v. Hutchins], 95 U.S. 210 [24 L.Ed. 409]; 11 Exch. 878. But see [Hazelrigg v. Donaldson], 2 Mete., Ky., 445; [Maissonnaire v. Keating], Fed.Cas.No.8,978; 2 Gall. [325], 337; [Block v. United States], 8 Ct.Cl. 461; [Lehman v. Shackleford], 50 Ala. 437.” Bouv.Law Diet., Rawle’s Third Rev., p. 959, Duress.

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