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:
MARTINEZ v. PLUMEY.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
July 26, 1927.
No. 1917.
1. Boundaries @=>37(1) — Evidence held to sustain finding of Porto Rican courts as to boundary of estate.
Evidence held to sustain finding of Porto Rican courts as to particular boundary of estate.
2. Courts @=>406(1(4.) — Boundary findings of Porto Rican courts are conclusive on Circuit Court of Appeals, unless clearly erroneous.
Finding of Porto Rican courts as to boundaries is binding, on Circuit Court of Appeals, unless clearly erroneous. ,
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Porto Rico; Pedro De Aldrey, Associate Justice.
Action by Acisclo Marxuaeh Plumey against Antolin Nin Martinez. From a judgment of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico, affirming the judgment of the District Court of San Juan, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Ramon Siaea, of New York City (Juan de Guzman Benitez, of San Juan, Porto Rico, on the brief), for appellant.
Martin Travieso, of New York City, for appellee.
Before JOHNSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and LOWELL, District Judge.
JOHNSON, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico, affirming a judgment of the district court of San Juan in an action brought by the appellee against the appellant to recover possessipn of a certain tract of land situated in the Santurce ward, at a place known as Seboruco, in the city of San Juan. For convenience the parties will be designated as they were in the District Court.
The parties are adjoining landowners, and the complaint alleges: That the^plaintiff is owner of a parcel of land consisting of 8.77 cuerdas situated in the northern section of the Santuree ward, in San Juan, Porto Rico, “bounded on the north by the Seboruco road, on the south by the Martin Pena Canal, on the west by the lands of the defendant, Aniolin Kin Martinez, and on the east by lands of Mr. Lutz.” That the defendant is the owner of a rural property with an area of 13.71 cuerdas, bounded as follows: “On the north by the Seboruco road, on the south by the Martin Pena Canal, on the west by Mr. Sehirner, and on the east by lands of Rafael O. Mesorana now belonging to the plaintiff.” That the plaintiff is in possession of only 5.20 cuerdas of land, and the defendant of 16.96 cuerdas, being 3.21 cuerdas more than he is entitled to.
The defendant filed a cross-complaint, in which he claimed that the plaintiff was in possession of 1.53 cuerdas of land belonging to him.
Both parties claim title from the Cortijo estate; the plaintiff through two deeds, by one of which 21.82 cuerdas of land were conveyed to him, and in which the southern boundary was given as the Martin Pena Canal. The second deed was for 9.40 cuerdas, and the southern boundary was like that in the former deed.
The defendant acquired his land from the Cortijo estate, through several mesne conveyances, and it is bounded on- the south by the same canal.
By proceedings brought under the law of Porto Rico by the Cortijo estate in 1901 to determine its dominion title to the whole tract of land, its area was determined to be 40 cuerdas and so recorded in the proper registry. The people of Porto Rico were made a party to the proceedings.
The controversy between the parties arises from their different contentions as to what is the southern boundary of their lands. TJie District Court found that a railroad track, known as the railroad track of Rexach, built upon the northerly side of the canal about 40 years before suit was brought, for the purpose of transporting stone from a quarry, was the northerly boundary of the canal, and that, if this railroad track is taken as the southern boundary of the land, the Cortijo estate consisted of 40 cuerdas. It was contended by the defendant, Kin, that the southern boundary was the high-water line north of the railroad track, and, accepting this as the southern boundary, its area would be about 32 cuerdas.
The throe parties who had acquired the land of the Cortijo estate, by a public instrument recorded in the proper registry, stated that the area of the whole tract was 40 cuerdas, and gave the number of cuerdas owned by each, and also stated that the part owned by the defendant, as well as that owned by the predecessor in title of the plaintiff, had as its southern boundary the Martin Pena Canal. Later, in 1918, when the government desired a military camp for troops, the defendant leased to the military authorities part of his property, with its southern boundary as the railroad track of Rexach, and a plan of the camp itself was made by the military authorities, wherein Kin’s property appears as reaching down as far as the Rexach railroad track. The testimony was undisputed that north of the railroad track the ground was wet and marshy, and covered largely by a mangrove growth; that the roadbed of the track stopped the salt water from rising farther, and that the water that collected upon the north side of the track was rain water. It was also in the evidence that the defendant had built upon part of the low land extending to the railroad track a factory for making concrete blocks. The custodian of the public lands of Porto Rico testified that the Martin Pena Canal extends only to the .Rexach track, built upon a macadam roadbed, and that all the land north of this track is owned by private parties.
Whether the Cortijo estate extended to the Rexach track, or only to high-water mark, was a question of faet, and, as both the Porto Rican eourts have held that the track is its southern boundary, we are bound by this finding, unless it is clearly wrong. This rule has been so many times announced by this court that it is unnecessary to cite any authorities.
A careful study of the record has convinced us that there was evidence to sustain this finding, and as the determination of whether the railroad track is the southern boundary line of the land of the Cortijo estate is decisive of the claims of the parties, and both the lower courts have found that it is, we do not find it necessary to consider the assignments of error in detail.
The judgment of the Supremo Court of Porto Rico is affirmed, with costs to the appellee in this court.

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