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:
WASHINGTON PENSION UNION, Petitioner, v. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD, Respondent.
No. 15197.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Oct. 10, 1962.
Decided June 6, 1963.
Mr. David Rein, Washington, D. C., argued the motion to dismiss and vacate for petitioner.
Mr. Robert L. Keuch, Attorney, Department of Justice, argued in opposition to the motion for respondent. On respondent’s answer were Mr. Frank R. Hunter, Jr., General Counsel, Subversive Activities Control Board, and Mr. Kevin T. Maroney, Attorney, Department of Justice.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, Pretty-man, Senior Circuit Judge, and Dana-HER, Circuit Judge.
PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
This is another of the cases referred to in Labor Youth League v. Subversive Activities Control Board, *decided April 25, 1963. The Washington Pension Union was organized in 1937 as a non-profit benevolent corporation under the laws of the State of Washington. Its declared purpose was the promotion of pensions for the old and disabled. It grew by 1947 to a membership of some five or six thousand persons with some eighty locals. Then it diminished by 1961 to four locals and between two and three hundred members. Meantime, in December, 1954, the Attorney General petitioned the Subversive Activities Control Board to order the Union to register as a Communist front under Section 7 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950. Hearings were had, and in April, 1959, the Board issued a registration order. The Union, on June 12, 1959, petitioned this court to review the Board’s order.
While the petition for review was pending here, held in abeyance pending the final disposition of the Communist Party case, the Union, on November 24, 1961, moved the court to dismiss the petition and vacate the order for mootness. In its motion the Union, by its counsel, said it had been dissolved in August, 1961, and it attached exhibits in support. The court remanded the case to the Board for findings in respect to the alleged dissolution. Hearings were had, witnesses heard, and exhibits received. The Board issued a report on remand, and that report is now before us.
As the Board found, the facts as to the actions taken to dissolve the Union are not disputed. In early 1961 the officers discussed the declining membership and income. At a meeting of the directors in July, dissolution was discussed. The president had a conference with the Supervisor of Corporations in the office of the Secretary of State. This official advised him that the State would accept a petition signed by a majority of the directors. On August 12th, at a well-attended meeting, the directors present unanimously voted to dissolve, and a majority of the full board signed a certificate of dissolution. This was approved as to form and filed by the Supervisor of Corporations. The Secretary of State issued on August 17th a certificate that a “Surrender of Corporate Powers” of the Union had been filed in his office that day. At the hearing on remand before the Board, the Washington State Supervisor of Corporations was presented as a witness and testified that the procedure followed in this case has been the general practice for many years, because of the difficulties of obtaining a dissolution of non-profit corporations, and she expressed as an interpretation of her office, “Absolutely, as of August 17, 1961 it was dissolved.” The Board also found that according to unrebutted and undenied testimony the central office of the Union was dismantled, the furniture either sold or given away, and a statement mailed to several hundred people notifying them of the dissolution. So there can be no doubt of the fact that the Union as a corporation has been dissolved.
The question, then, is what disposition should be made of the proceeding at bar. Since the corporation which was the respondent before the Board brought the case to the court, and since it now establishes that after it became a party-petitioner here it voluntarily terminated its corporate existence and is no longer in being, we think the proper disposition of the matter is to dismiss the petition for review.
The Board, in its report on remand, discussed the pre-existing duty to register as a bar to dissolution, and the question whether the Union may be deemed to be still in existence in view of the fact that groups of its members continue to meet with each other, and the question whether the defunct corporation might at some time be reactivated, and the question of the effect of the existence of a committee of four members formed to collect material relating to the Union for deposit in the library of the University of Washington. But in view of our disposition of the case we deem discussion of these several questions unnecessary. The petition for review will be dismissed for lack of a party-petitioner. The course followed by us in this matter is in principle and in substance, so far as the dissimilar factual situations permit, the course followed by the Supreme Court in Walling v. James V. Reuter Co.
We note that the status of a disbanded unincorporated association presents problems totally different from those presented by a dissolved corporation. Reactivation of the former may be simple and informal; revival of the latter is possible only under legislative authority and strict formality. The former may be dormant; the latter is dead. And in this connection we also note that the application of this statute is to organizations named in the proceedings. The Attorney General’s petition names an organization. The Board holds a hearing concerning that named organization. It makes findings as to the direction, control and objectives of that named organization. It orders that named organization to register, or the officers or members of that named organization to register. The sanctions apply to the members of that organization. The statute is not applied like a spray to all persons who hold certain ideas or who may become tainted by brushing against ideas or people. Whether the Board could order a named organization or its successor or successors in interest to register is not now before us; so far as we are advised it has never been attempted. The foregoing is by way of explanation of the somewhat different dispositions we make of Labor Youth League, supra, and this case.
Petition dismissed.
. 115 U.S.App.D.C. 159, 322 F.2d 364.
. 64 Stat. 993, as amended, 50 U.S.C. § 786.
. Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U.S. 1, 81 S.Ct. 1857, 6 L.Ed.2d 625 (1961).
. “[O]n a friendly, social basis, that’s all,” the witness said.
. 321 U.S. 671, 64 S.Ct. 826, 88 L.Ed. 1001 (1944).

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