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:
BRIGGS v. HUNT, ELLIS & CO. et al. Petition of BRIGGS.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
February 2, 1926.)
Nos. 1927, 1937.
1. Bankruptcy <§=¿>465 — Appeal dismissed! on same matter coming before court on petition to revise.
Appeal from decree affirming order of referee in bankruptcy limiting time for filing reclamation claims will be dismissed, where matter is also before the court on petition to revise the same decree.
2. Bankruptcy <§=¿>446 — Question of authority to enter order not considered on petition of one not adversely affected.
Question of authority of referee in bankruptcy before adjudication to limit time to file reclamation petitions will not be considered; no right of petitioner, so far as disclosed, being adversely affected, he not alleging that he was thereby prevented from filing any such petitions, and it appearing that he did file two within the time limited.
Appeal from and Petition to Revise the Proceedings of the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; James Arnold Lowell, Judge.
In the matter of Hunt, Ellis & Co. and others, bankrupts. Walter S. Briggs appeals from a decree affirming an order of the referee, and files petition to revise the same decree.
Appeal and petition dismissed.
Mark M. Horblit, of Boston, Mass. (Herbert A. Baker and Horblit & Wasserman, all of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant and petitioner.
Daniel J. Lyne, of Boston, Mass., pro se.
Lee M. Friedman, of Boston, Mass. (Friedman, Atherton, King & Turner, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for other appellees and respondents.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
No. 1927 is an appeal from a decree of the federal District Court for Massachusetts affirming an order of a referee in bankruptcy limiting the time for filing reclamation claims in a bankruptcy matter where, before adjudication, composition had been offered and accepted by a majority of the creditors, but as yet not approved by the court.
No. 1937 is a petition to revise in matters of law the same decree from which the appeal was taken in the previous case.
The matter is.properly before us on petition to revise, and the appeal should be dismissed.
It appears that on August 10,1925, an involuntary petition in bankruptcy was filed against William Hunt and L. Guy Dennett, copartners carrying on a stock and brokerage business under the name of Hunt, Ellis & Co.; that on October 12, 1925, the alleged bankrupts filed a petition for composition; that on October 13, 1925, the ease, with the petition, requesting a meeting of creditors to consider the offer of composition, was referred to the referee in bankruptcy, “to take such further proceedings therein as are authorized by the act and as in his judgment .may be necessary or advisable for the preservation of the estate or business of the alleged bankrupt, including the appointment of receivers and appraisers, if necessary; to hear and determine all matters of fact relating to said meeting and the proposed offer in composition; to call such meetings, give such notices, and make such further orders as may be necessary in the premises while said petition and offer in composition are pending, and to file his report under this order within 40 days hereafter”; that on October 17, 1925, notice of a meeting to consider the composition was duly given; that' at said meeting held October 30, 1925, on motion of counsel for the alleged bankrupts, the referee fixed December 30, 1925, as the time on or before which claims in the nature of reclamation or in the nature of impressing funds with a trust must be filed, which order was later reduced to writing, notice of which was mailed to all creditors on November 4, 1925; that said order, after setting out the name of the ease and the motion of counsel, the time when and the circumstances under which the oral order was made, reads as follows:
“It is hereby ordered that the time on or before which persons in interest herein may herein file any proceeding in reclamation, in the nature of reclamation or in the nature of impressing with trust securities or funds within the jurisdiction of this court, be and the same hereby is fixed at December 30, 1925, being sixty (60) days from the date hereof and it is further ordered that all persons in interest failing on or before such date to file any such claim be forever thereafter barred from filing the same herein.”
On November 11, 1925, the present petitioner filed a petition to review said order by the District Judge, and on November 23, 1925, the District Judge, having reviewed the order, entered a decree dismissing the pefcition and affirming the order of the referee. No order of 'adjudication has been entered, and the petition for composition is still pending before the referee. It further appears that the petitioner had, within the time fixed by said order, filed in said proceeding two or more petitions for reclamation.
The contention on the part of the petitioner is that the court erred in affirming the order of the referee on the ground that the latter had no authority to enter the order before adjudication.
We are unable to see wherein the petitioner, in view of the facts set out in his petition, is in any way aggrieved by the order. The petition does not allege that he has been prevented by the order from filing such reclamation petitions as he deemed necessary, and the answer to the petition discloses that he has “within the time fixed therefor by said order filed two petitions in the nature of reclamation, one on December 1, and the other on December 30, 1925.”
We listened with interest to the extended arguments of counsel and have spent much time examining the eases called to our attention as bearing on the question argued, but as no right of the petitioner, so far as the facts disclose, is adversely affected by the order, we do not feel called upon to consider it.
It may be doubtful whether the order properly construed operates further than to preclude the filing of reclamation claims in the bankruptcy proceeding after the date fixed by the order and to bar proceedings against the receiver individually in ease he turned over the estate to the bankrupts with knowledge of outstanding reclamation claims which had not been seasonably filed, a composition having been confirmed. It would seem, however, that to this extent it would operate to preclude the filing of claims thereafter and as a bar, and that the District Court had jurisdiction to enter such an order. It will be sufficient to consider the question whether the District Court, after a petition for composition has been filed, either before or after adjudication, has jurisdiction to enter an order barring reclamation claims as against the debtor, not presented within the time limited, when a case presenting the question is before us.
It is one thing to say that adverse claimants to property in the custody of the bankruptcy court may have their rights determined in that court, pending a composition, and quite another to say that a bankrupt debtor may, distribution of the estate being suspended by a pending composition, compel such adverse claimants to have their rights in the property determined in that court or be thereafter barred.
In No. 1927, Briggs v. Hunt, Ellis & Co., the appeal is dismissed without costs. No. 1937, Walter S. Briggs, Petitioner, the petition is vdismissed, with costs to the respondents.

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: 99