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:
SELAMA-DINDINGS PLANTATIONS, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CINCINNATI UNION STOCK YARD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. SELAMA-DINDINGS PLANTATIONS, LTD., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant, v. CINCINNATI UNION STOCK YARD COMPANY, Defendant-Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 15412, 15413.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 6, 1964.
S. Arthur Spiegel, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Selama-Dindings Plantations, Cohen, Baron, Druffel & Hogan, James Q. Doran, Mark S. Baron, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief.
Murray Seasongood and Robert P. Goldman, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Cincinnati Union Stock Yard Co., Clyde M. Abbott, Reuven J. Katz, Paxton & Seasongood, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief.
Before O’SULLIVAN and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This litigation involves a contest for control of the Cincinnati Union Stock Yard Company. The antagonists were representatives of the plaintiff registered investment company, Selama-Dindings Plantations, Ltd., on one side, and the longtime directors of defendant Cincinnati Union Stock Yard Company on the other. Plaintiff’s corporate charter was granted in Hawaii, but it maintains the office of its Executive Committee in Chicago. Its officers evidently saw opportunity for gain in moving in on what it considered a venerable, profitable, but slumbering Cincinnati enterprise. The defendant, a locally owned and long respected business, was described by its directors in their protests against the newcomers as “a solid Cincinnati institution.” Substantial numbers of the local shareholders were apparently willing, however, to trade tradition for the attractive prices offered for their shares. Plaintiff gained a foothold and then carried on a campaign to gain control. Defendant’s directors resisted. The ensuing contest was bitter. As of the last brief filed, defendant asserts that plaintiff has invested over a million dollars in the shares of defendant company and “has been or will be able to assume control immediately, if the court does not make permanent the injunction against doing so entered by the District Court.”
A proxy fight was carried on and each party charges the other with fraud, deception and gross improprieties in the methods employed in the struggle for control. Plaintiff instituted the present lawsuit as a derivative action for the benefit of the stock yard’s shareholders, claiming the defendant directors had sold a piece of corporate property for less than it could have been sold, and had caused the company to spend funds on improper proxy solicitation. Defendants met the complaint with a counterclaim for damages arising from the expenses incurred by the stock yard company in resisting plaintiff’s campaign to obtain control “conducted by impermissible and illegal methods,” asking in addition that plaintiff be enjoined from taking control and suggesting a decree of divestiture as a means of undoing the wrongs claimed to have been committed by plaintiff’s representatives.
After a lengthy trial, the District Judge filed his opinion with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, denying relief to both sides. His opinion is reported as Selama-Dindings Plantations, Ltd. v. Durham, 216 F.Supp. 104 (S.D. Ohio, 1963). This opinion more fully sets forth the issues of fact and the legal questions involved.
The opposing positions of the litigants involve primarily questions of fact. We are satisfied that the District Judge’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and that no relevant rule of law was misapplied. The factual background of the litigation is adequately set out in the District Court opinion and no purpose would be served by our elaboration of the reasons which lead us to approve the result reached by the District Judge.
Judgment affirmed. Each party will pay its own costs on this appeal, but without prejudice to consideration by the District Court of indemnification by the defendant Cincinnati Union Stock Yard ■Company of its directors for their personal expense arising from the prosecution of this litigation. The order of the District Court barring further proxy solicitation and shareholders’ meetings is dissolved in accordance with the opinion of that Court, affirmed hereby.

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