Task: songer_appbus

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.

PER CURIAM:
Defendants-appellants-cross-appellees petition for rehearing of our decision of September 4, 1986, 800 F.2d 305. That decision, entered upon remand from the Supreme Court, modified our original decision of July 5, 1985, 767 F.2d 1041, in two respects. First, we eliminated a reduction that we had previously made in the amount of the remittitur offer to reflect tax benefits; we thereby confirmed the amount of the remittitur as ordered by the District Court. Second, we directed the District Court to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to add a civil RICO claim.
On petition for rehearing, the defendants seek reconsideration of the ruling permitting an opportunity to add a civil RICO claim. Though acknowledging the force of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Company, 473 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1986), defendants contend that the plaintiff has lost the opportunity to pursue a RICO claim because of the manner in which he advanced his RICO contention to this Court on the original appeal. On that appeal, the plaintiffs argument concerning the District Court’s rejection of his RICO claim was included as one of several contentions advanced in his cross-appeal. Part V of plaintiff’s brief, the portion arguing the issues on the cross-appeal, was captioned, “IF JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT IS NOT AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF’S CROSS APPEAL MUST BE CONSIDERED.” The first sentence of this section of the brief acknowledged that there could be no cross-appeal unless this Court determined that any part of the remittitur offer was to be altered. Section E of Part V of the brief, concerned specifically with restoration of the RICO claim, was captioned, “If a New Trial is Ordered, the Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Complaint to Add a RICO Count should be Allowed. ”
Plaintiff thus advanced his RICO contention to this Court conditionally, as a matter to be considered only in the event that the remittitur amount was altered and a new trial ordered. The conditional nature of plaintiff’s RICO argument was expressly noted in our original opinion. 767 F.2d at 1046 n. 4.
Once our ruling on remand restored the full amount of the remittitur offer, as specified by the District Court, the condition for plaintiff’s cross-appeal was unsatisfied: there is no alteration of the remittitur amount and no order for a new trial. We see no reason to relieve plaintiff of the representations made to this Court on the original appeal, restricting the RICO contention as one to be advanced only upon the occurrence of specified events. Since those events have not and will not occur, the cross-appeal should not have been entertained in our September 4, 1986, decision.
Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is granted, and our decision of September 4, 1986, is amended to delete the instruction to the District Court to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to present a motion to amend the complaint to add a civil RICO claim.

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.
Answer:

Answer: 3