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.
The instant appeal is a consolidation of two cases from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine, 32 B.R. 240, 31 B.R. 770. Complaints were filed in the bankruptcy court after the expiration of the stay of judgment in Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982). The bankruptcy court dismissed the cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The United States District Court for the District of Maine, 32 B.R. 1008, 32 B.R. 1012, affirmed on the ground that Local Rule 41, the emergency rule providing for continued operation of the bankruptcy courts, was invalid. The district court determined that it retained jurisdiction to consider bankruptcy matters, but held that it could not exercise jurisdiction in cases filed exclusively in the bankruptcy court.
The recent passage of the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-353, 98 Stat. 333 (1984), moots the present appeal. Section 101(a) of the Act amends 28 U.S.C. § 1334 to establish jurisdiction in the district courts over “all cases under title 11” and over “all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.” Section 104(a) of the Act adds to title 28 a new chapter governing bankruptcy judges, including a section providing for references of proceedings from the district courts (new 28 U.S.C. § 157). Because Rule 41 of the local rules was explicitly limited in duration “until Congress enacts appropriate remedial legislation in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.,” the rule has lapsed. We decline to review the constitutionality of a rule that no longer has any operative effect. DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 94 S.Ct. 1704, 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974). According to the appropriate practice in the federal courts, we vacate the district court’s judgment of dismissal. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).
During the period between the expiration of the Marathon stay and the enactment of the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Rule 41(b) provided that all bankruptcy filings be made in the bankruptcy courts. Section 115(a) of the Act provides that,
On the date of the enactment of this Act the appropriate district court of the United States shall have jurisdiction of—
(1) cases, and matters and proceedings in cases, under the Bankruptcy Act that are pending immediately before such date in the bankruptcy courts continued by section 404(a) of the Act of November. 6, 1978 (Public Law 95-598; 92 Stat. 2687), and
(2) cases under title 11 of the United States Code, and proceedings arising under title 11 of the United States Code, or arising in or related to cases under title 11 of the United States Code, that are pending immediately before such date in the bankruptcy courts continued by section 404(a) of the Act of November 6, 1978.
This language removes the district court’s concern over exercising jurisdiction in cases filed in the bankruptcy courts. We therefore remand to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984.
Vacated and remanded.

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: 99