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:
CORNISH et al. v. O’DONOGHUE et al.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Submitted January 8, 1929.
Decided February 4, 1929.
No. 4666.
Wm. E. Leahy, George E. C. Hayes, Ernest J. Davis, all of Washington, D. C., and Louis Marshall, of New York City, for appellants.
Jesse C. Adkins, Frank F. Nesbit, and Lncien n. Mereier, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
This appeal is from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia declaring a conveyance of lot 63, square 3125, property No. 2328 First Street N. W., in this city, from one Thomas A. Grier to appellants, defendants below, Henry A. Cornish and Alyee N. Cornish, void; and enjoining the defendants to remove themselves and their personal property from said premises.
The bill avers, in substance, that the appellees, plaintiffs below, are owners of various designated lots in square 3125, and occupy the same as their residences; that prior to June 26, 1927, one Gruver, was the record owner of lot 63, the house being one of a row of 17 houses which comprised all the buildings on the west side of First street between Adams and Bryant streets; that these houses were built about the year 1904 by Middaugh and Shannon; and that in 1905 they huilt 17 more houses on the east side of First street in the same block; that all these houses were sold by Middaugh and Shannon, including-the property owned by Gruver, the deeds to which were recorded and contained the following covenant running with the land: “That said lot shall never he rented, leased, sold, transferred, or conveyed unto any negro or colored person under penalty of $2,000, which shall be a lien against said property.”
It is further averred in the bill that all the dwellings in block 3125 were occupied and used exclusively as-residenees by persons of the Caucasian race, with the exception of the property occupied by the defendants; that on January 26, 1927, Gruver entered into an agreement to sell lot 63 to one Thomas A. Grier, and in the contract of sale it was provided: “It is understood and agreed by both parties that the purchaser, Mr. Thomas A. Grier, is white, and of the Caucasian race, and that he has purchased this property for his own home, and that he will occupy said property himself for his home, and that it is sold subject to the covenants of record; otherwise this contract and sale to become null and void.”
This was followed by a deed from Gruver to Thomas A. Grier, conveying the lot in question, which was recorded February 2, 1927, and which contained the covenant here in question. The deed from Grier to Cornish contaiued the statement that the property was conveyed “subject to the covenants of record.”
It is also averred that the defendants Cornish are negroes, or colored persons; that they entered into possession of lot 63 in open violation of the restrictive covenant; and that, because of their acceptance of the conveyance in violation of the covenant, their deed is a nullity and totally void.
The covenant here involved is identical with the covenant contained in Torrey v. Wolfes, 56 App. D. C. 5, 6 F.(2d) 702, where we held it valid and enforceable. Inasmuch as the decision in the Torrey Case, and in Corrigan v. Buckley, 55 App. D. C. 30, 299 F. 899, and Russell et al. v. Wallace et al., 58 App. D. C. 357, 30 F.(2d) 981 (present term), fully dispose of all the issues here involved, further discussion is deemed unnecessary.
The decree is affirmed, with costs.

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