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:
GREENWICH COLLIERIES, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent, and Kathryn Thachik, (Widow of George S. Thachik), Respondent.
No. 83-3312.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued March 9, 1984.
Decided April 20, 1984.
As Amended May 17, 1984.
John J. Bagnato (argued), Robert G. Rose, Spence, Custer, Saylor, Wolfe & Rose, Johnstown, Pa., for petitioner.
Allen H. Feldman (argued), Janice B. Corwin, Francis X. Lilly, Deputy Sol. of Labor, Karen I. Ward, Associate Sol. for Special Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation, U.S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D.C., for U.S. Dept, of Labor.
David J. Tulowitzki, Pawlowski, Long, Creany, & Tulowitzki, Ebensburg, Pa., for Kathryn Thachik.
Before HUNTER and BECKER, Circuit Judges, and KATZ, District Judge.
Honorable Marvin Katz, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
OPINION OF THE COURT
JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge:
Greenwich Collieries (“Greenwich”) filed a petition to review the final order of the Benefits Review Board in a case entitled Kathryn Thachik (Widow of George S. Thachik) v. Greenwich Collieries and Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, No. 81-1283 BLA (OWCP No. B [ XXX-XX-XXXX ]).
By its petition Greenwich sought to have vacated that portion of the Benefits Review Board order that assessed interest against Greenwich beginning on the date of the deceased miner’s death. That ruling was based on the Benefit Review Board’s prior decision in Kuhar v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., BRB No. 81-111 BLA (March 15, 1983), vacated on review upon joint motion of the parties, No. 83-3226 (3d Cir. Aug. 12, 1983).
The problem presented by the petition centers on the date for the commencement of interest on awards under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-960 (1976 & Supp. V 1982). Greenwich takes the position that interest should be awarded effective thirty days from the date of an initial determination of entitlement pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 725.420 (1983). The Department of Labor has taken the same position, based on its interpretation of 20 C.F.R. § 725.608(a) (1983). In Kuhar, however, the Benefits Review Board adopted a different interpretation of the governing regulation, holding that interest accrues as of the onset date of disability. Kuhar, typescript at 20. The Board adhered to that position in this case.
While this matter was pending in this court, David J. Tulowitzki, counsel for claimant and the United Mine Workers of America, District No. 2, advised our clerk:
In response to a telephone call from your office, please be advised that the elaimants in the above captioned cases have no interest in the outcome of the issue presently before the court relative to the onset date of interest liability.
[Letter of Counsel dated Nov. 22, 1983].
In our view, the position taken by counsel for the claimant makes this a case of intervening mootness. See A.L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States, 368 U.S. 324, 82 S.Ct. 337, 7 L.Ed.2d 317 (1961). The dispute in Mechling became moot when the railroads abandoned their discriminatory tariffs and withdrew their application before the Interstate Commerce Commission. In this case, as in Mechling, there is no presently existing controversy. The claimant widow has, since the filing of Greenwich’s petition for review, affirmatively stated that she has no interest in the issue here involved.
Accordingly, this case will be remanded to the Benefits Review Board with the direction that its order with respect to interest be vacated insofar as it awards interest for the period prior to thirty days from the date of the initial determination of entitlement in this case.
. § 725.608 Interest.
(a) If an operator or other employer fails or refuses to pay any or all benefits due under the terms of an initial determination by a deputy commissioner (§ 725.420), a decision and order filed and served by an administrative law judge (§ 725.478) or a decision filed by the Board or a United States court of appeals, including any penalty awarded in addition to benefits in accordance with § 725.607, such operator shall be liable for 6 percent simple annual interest on all past due benefits computed from the date on which such benefits were due and payable, in addition to such operator’s or other employer’s liability as is otherwise provided in this part____
. The letter was also captioned in another case dealing with the same problem. Again, under date of February 20, 1984, Mr. Tulowitzki confirmed his advice that the claimant had no interest in the outcome of the issue before the court relative to the onset date of interest liability.

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: 1