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:
PEELLE CO. v. SECURITY FIRE DOOR CO.
No. 9314.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
April 14, 1932.
Thomas J. Johnston, of New York City (J. Granville Meyers, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Joseph J. Gravely, of St. Louis, Mo. (James A. Carr and T. Percy Carr, both of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before STONE and BOOTH, Circuit Judges, and WYMAN, District Judge.
STONE, Circuit Judge.
This is an action for alleged infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 of patent No. 1,414,387, to Benjamin Wexler. The defenses are invalidity of the patent and noninfringement. Prom a decree adjudging the claims involved invalid, plaintiff takes this appeal.
This patent is for a dumb-waiter door structure. The structure embodies a rigid metal frame at the door opening having guides or tracks wherein vertically travel two counterbalanced half doors. The entire construction, including the doors, is made and shipped as a unit. The main object of the invention is stated to be a construction capable of installation as a unit and, at the same time, insuring a fixed permanent relation of parts which will insure free easy movement of the doors after installation.
The court found that the claims involved were invalid because anticipated by various patents and by several catalogued disclosures cited in the memorandum opinion.
We have carefully examined each of the numerous urged citations against the patent. Some of these citations show only a part or only some of the principles involved in these claims, but several of them rather clearly set out the entire idea. It is unnecessary to discuss these in detail, since one of them, Dugdale No. 1,133,794, is sufficient to avoid this patent. However, we may observe that the elements are old. The angle side members are found in numerous patents such as Cross, No. 560,396; Dug-dale, 1,133,794; and others; also in Catalogues A and B of Variety Manufacturing Company; and in Thorpe Catalogue, all of which were offered in evidence. The two-part doors counterbalanced are also found in many patents including Dugdale and Cross and prior Wexler patents; also in the Catalogues of the Variety Manufacturing Company. The guides or tracks secured to a flange of the vertical side bars are found in the Variety Manufacturing Company Catalogues B and A; in the Cross patent; and in the Dugdale patent. The use of anchors for embedding in the wall are found in the Appleton patent, No. 931,714, and in the Variety Manufacturing Company Catalogue B. Sill and lintel members secured to the vertical angle side members and spaced apart are found in Dugdale, and in the Variety Manufacturing Company Catalogues A and B. Nor is the combination new. It is found in Dugdale; in the Catalogues A and B of the Variety Manufacturing Company; and, furthermore, is covered by the fact testimony given on the trial.
In Dugdale there are the same character of doors, door movement members and frame, and the entire device is designed to be manufactured as a unit “ready to be set up at the place of the chute which said doors are to occupy.” Not only are all of the outlines of the patent in suit shown in Dugdale, but there is much similarity in detail.
It is contended by the appellant that the prior art disclosed by some of the patents is not of dumb-waiter doors, but of freight elevator doors, and that freight elevator doors are not in the same art with dumbwaiter doors. We discover no merit in this contention. An examination of the structures disclosed shows that the main difference is one of size, and the evidence on the trial also disclosed that dumb-waiters were considered in the same art as freight elevators, only that they were smaller. We are therefore of the opinion that the prior art, including freight elevator door construction, is to be considered.
The decree should be and is affirmed. ■

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