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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
Joe L. HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The KROGER BAKING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 74-1160.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 12, 1975.
James T. Allison, Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant.
James W. McDonnell, Jr., Canada, Russell & Turner, J. Heiskell Weather-ford, III, Robert M. Johnson, Memphis, Tenn., for defendant-appellee.
William A. Carey, General Counsel, Joseph T. Eddins, Associate General Counsel, Beatrice Rosenberg, Charles L. Reischel, Charles Hodge, Washington, D. C., for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, amicus curiae.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, PECK, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
By an order previously entered herein, our further consideration of the appeal in this case was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s review of our opinion in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 489 F.2d 525 (1973). It now appears, however, that the grant of certiorari permitted only review of an issue not pertinent to the present appeal, and that the opinion filed by the Supreme Court May 19, 1975 is not dispositive of the issue before us. Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (S.Ct. No. 73-1543).
It therefore is necessary for us to determine whether our opinion in Johnson, supra, requires a determination that this action is barred by the applicable 30-day statute of limitations provision set forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§ 701 et seq., 706(e), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., 2000e-5(e), as it existed in 1971. We therein held that a refiling of a complaint subsequent to a dismissal without prejudice was barred by the thirty-day statute of limitations provision, where more than thirty days had passed between plaintiff-appellant’s receipt of a right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the refiling; it is further to be noted that a period in excess of thirty days had also elapsed between the date of the entry of the order dismissing the action without prejudice and such refiling. However, Johnson is distinguishable in that therein no refiling provision was included, while the order in the present case purported to permit a refiling within thirty days of its entry. In the circumstances, it is now concluded that Johnson is without controlling precedential value.
In Bomer v. Ribicoff, 304 F.2d 427 (6th Cir. 1962), we held that a dismissal without prejudice “leaves the situation the same as if the suit had never been brought.” See also, Goodman v. City Prods. Corp., 425 F.2d 702 (6th Cir. 1970). In the present case, appellant’s attempt to refile on March 12, 1973 was more than two years beyond the thirty-day period, and neither the District Court nor this Court has the power to extend such statutory period.
The cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint in accordance with the foregoing.
The filing period has since been extended to ninety (90) days 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l).

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1