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:
MOYD et al. v. ATLANTIC GREYHOUND CORPORATION. GAFFNEY et al. v. ATLANTIC GREYHOUND CORPORATION.
Nos. 5804, 5805.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit
Oct 27, 1948.
Zach McGhee and Isadore S. Bernstein, both of Columbia, S. C., for appellants.
N. A. Turner, of Columbia, S. C. (Edward A. Harter, Jr., of Columbia, S. C., on the brief), for appellee.
■ William S. Tyson, Sol., and Bessie Margolin, Asst. Sol., both of Washington, D. C., William A. Lowe, of Chicago, 111., and Sidney S. Berman, of Washington, D. C, and Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Atty., United States Dept, of Labor, of Birmingham, Ala. for Administrator of Wage & Hour Division, United States Dept, of Labor, amicus curiae.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
These are appeals in cases instituted under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. '§ 201 et seq., for the recovery of wages and overtime compensation. Plaintiffs are shoe shine boys who shined shoes in the men’s rest room of the bus terminal of the defendant Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, at Columbia, S. C. The defendant was admittedly engaged in the operation of passenger buses in interstate commerce and maintained this terminal in connection with its business. The plaintiffs were paid no wages but were allowed to retain all amounts received by them for shining shoes. They performed no services for defendant except that they were required to keep clean the rest room in which they operated. They worked in three daily shifts of eight hours each. Their earnings from shining shoes and tips amounted on the average to from $8.00 to $10.00 per day each, according to the findings of the special referee appointed by the trial judge, and were far in excess of the minimum wages prescribed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, with time and a half allowed for overtime.
There is grave doubt as to whether plaintiffs can properly be said to have been engaged in commerce (See McLeod v. Threlkeld, 319 U.S. 491, 63 S.Ct. 1248, 87 L.Ed. 1538) or to have been employees of defendant (See Magruder v. Yellow Cab Co., 4 Cir., 141 F.2d 324) within the meaning of the Act. We need not go into these questions, however, since it is clear that recovery was properly denied on the ground that the amounts received by plaintiffs for shoe shining and tips was far in excess of any sums to which they would have been entitled as wages and overtime compensation under the Act. Plaintiffs deny that the tips received by them should be considered as wages within its meaning, but the point is definitely ruled by our decision in Southern Railway v. Black, 4 Cir., 127 F.2d 280.
Contention is made that plaintiffs are at least entitled to overtime compensation on the theory that their wage rate should be computed on the basis of tips received and that overtime compensation should be allowed on this basis as their regular wage rate. It is settled, of course, that overtime compensation should be allowed on wages actually received, even though such wages are in excess of the minimum wage prescribed by the Act with time and a half for overtime on the minimum. Bay Ridge Operating Company v. Aaron, 334 U.S. 446, 68 S.Ct. 1186; Overnight Motor Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572, 62 S.Ct. 1216, 86 L.Ed. 1682. In this case, however, there was no regular rate of pay, and the right to recover wages and overtime compensation must be determined under the minimum wage provisions of the Act, as was done in Southern Railway v. Black, supra. Defendant may “credit against the obligation to pay statutory excess compensation the amount already paid to each respondent which is allocable to work in those excess hours.” Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron, supra [334 U.S. 446, 68 S.Ct. 1202]. When that is done in this case, no right of recovery remains. There is nothing in law or in common sense which requires that the compensation from shoe shining and tips received from the entire period of service be treated as normal wages so as to provide a basis for recovering overtime compensation for the hours worked in excess of the maximum work week.
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: 0