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:
Frank FOE and Walter Woe, (a pseudonym), by his mother and guardian, Wilma Woe (a pseudonym), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mario CUOMO, individually and as Governor of the State of New York; Lawrence Kolb, M.D., individually and as Commissioner of Department of Mental Hygiene of the State of New York; Morton B. Wallach, M.D., individually and as Director of Brooklyn State Hospital; and the State of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 514, 515, Dockets 88-9075, 89-7037.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 11, 1989.
Decided Dec. 15, 1989.
Morton Birnbaum, Brooklyn (George D. Garofallou, New York City, Mark Green-fest, Roslyn Heights, Burton Zuckerman, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff s-appellants.
Michael S. Lottman, East Hartford, Conn. (Murray B. Schneps, Scheinberg, Schneps, DePetris and DePetris, River-head, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Arnold D. Fleischer, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., of the State of New York, 0. Peter Sherwood, Sol. Gen., New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Before TIMBERS, PIERCE, and MINER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dr. Morton Birnbaum, Esq., and Burton Zuckerman, Esq., have brought this appeal on behalf of members of a class of persons between the ages of 21 and 65 who are involuntarily civilly committed in the Bronx Psychiatric Center (the “BPC”). Appellants challenge an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bartels, Judge) approving the settlement of this action insofar as it related to the BPC. See Foe v. Cuomo, 700 F.Supp. 107 (E.D.N.Y.1988). Birnbaum and Zuckerman served as class counsel for a number of years in this lengthy class action litigation. They purport, on behalf of appellants, to appeal from orders in which Judge Bartels found that they had withdrawn from their representation of the plaintiff class and barred them from intervening in the action on behalf of Wilma Woe, the mother of the original, now-deceased, lead plaintiff, and T.C.L., the mother of R.L., a patient at the BPC.
Assuming appealability, the question of whether the district judge abused his discretion in supervising the counsel before him must be considered in light of the judge’s obligation to insure that the plaintiff class is adequately represented throughout the litigation. See Cullen v. New York State Civil Service Comm’n, 435 F.Supp. 546, 563-64 (E.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 566 F.2d 846, 848-49 (2d Cir.1977); Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(d); 1 H. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 1.07, at 10 (2d ed.1985). To the extent it is claimed that Birnbaum and Zuckerman had been barred, de facto, from representing the class, we do not believe the district judge exceeded the bounds of his authority and responsibility to supervise counsel. Furthermore, in later determining that Birnbaum and Zuckerman had withdrawn from representing the class, the district judge was entitled to rely upon the representation of their co-counsel that this had indeed occurred. We also note that following the district judge’s decision replacing them as class counsel, Birnbaum and Zuckerman did not attempt to participate in the case for approximately eleven months.
While the district judge may have erred in not permitting Birnbaum and Zuckerman to re-enter the case formally to represent the interests of R.L., see Fed.R. Civ.P. 23(d)(2); 7B C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1799, at 441-46 (1986) (urging liberal consideration of motions to intervene in class actions), we see little prejudice to R.L. Indeed, after Birnbaum and Zuckerman indicated a desire “to participate as co-counsel, to review any proposed settlement and ... to inform the court and other plaintiffs’ counsel as to what we believe is just and proper for our clients,” they were invited to participate at the hearing on the settlement and they submitted written objections which were considered by the district judge.
With respect to the class settlement itself, the district judge carefully considered and evaluated the settlement in light of the factors set forth in this court’s precedents. While the settlement did not incorporate Judge Neaher’s previous finding” that the BPC would be overcrowded when holding a population of 580 patients, Woe v. Cuomo, 638 F.Supp. 1506, 1515 (E.D.N.Y.1986), appellants fail to recognize that the context of the litigation had substantially changed by the time the settlement was reached. The most significant change was the reaccreditation of the BPC by the Joint Committee on Accreditation of Hospitals.
Appellants further argue that this settlement is not as beneficial as the settlement reached in a similar case in another district. While comparisons between similar actions may be helpful in addressing whether a settlement is fair, it is important to recognize distinctions between such actions. Moreover, since the ultimate question is whether this settlement was reasonable under the circumstances, a district judge is not required to make such a comparison. We conclude that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in approving the settlement which was reached by experienced counsel through arm’s length negotiations.
While Birnbaum and Zuckerman have yet to submit a fee application, they urge that the matter be remanded to a different district judge for consideration of such an application. We see no reason to apply this “extraordinary remedy,” Sobel v. Yeshiva Univ., 839 F.2d 18, 37 (2d Cir.1988), and we are confident that Judge Bartels will fully and fairly evaluate any application which is made by Birnbaum and Zuckerman.
We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and believe them to be without merit. The orders of the district court are 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: 0