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:
I.T.O. CORPORATION OF BALTIMORE, Employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier, Petitioners, v. BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent, William T. Adkins, Respondent, International Longshoremen’s Association, Amicus Curiae. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STEVEDORES and California Stevedore & Ballast Co., Carolina Shipping Company, The Chesapeake Operating Company, Cilco Terminal Co., Inc., John T. Clark & Son of Boston, Bernard S. Costello, Inc., Dixie Stevedores, Inc., Eller & Company, Inc., Global Terminal & Container Services, Inc., Federal Marine Terminals, Inc., Gulf Stevedore Corp., Harrington & Company, Inc., Howland Hook Marine Terminal Corp., Independent Pier Co., International Great Lakes Shipping Co., International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., Lake Charles Stevedores, Inc., Lavino Shipping Co., Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc., McCabe, Hamilton & Renny Co., Ltd., John W. McGrath Corp., Maher Terminals, Inc., Matson Terminals, Inc., Metropolitan Stevedore Co., Nacirema Operating Co., Inc., New Bedford Stevedoring Corp., Northeast Marine Terminal Co., Inc., Old Dominion Stevedoring Corp., John J. Orr & Son, Inc., Palmetto Shipping & Stevedoring Co., Inc., Pate Stevedoring Co., P. C. Pfeiffer Co., Inc., Pittston Stevedoring Corp., Port Stevedoring Company, Inc., Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc., Shippers Stevedoring Co., T. Smith & Son, Inc., Strachan Shipping Co., Transoceanic Terminal Corp., Universal Maritime Service Corp., Westfall Stevedore Co., Wilmington Shipping Co., Young and Company of Houston, Its member companies, Petitioners, v. BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent, William T. Adkins, Respondent.
Nos. 75-1051 and 75-1088.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 28, 1977.
Decided Sept. 22, 1977.
David R. Owen, Baltimore, Md. (Francis J. Gorman, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for petitioners in No. 75-1051.
Donald A. Krach, Baltimore, Md. (William C. Stifler, III, Paul B. Lang, Niles, Barton & Wilmer, Baltimore, Md., Thomas D. Wilcox, Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioners in No. 75-1088.
Linda L. Carroll, Atty., Washington, D.C. (William J. Kilberg, Sol. of Labor, Washington, D.C., Marshall H. Harris, Associate Sol., Philadelphia, Pa., George M. Lilly, Karen L. Gilbert, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., on brief), for respondents in No. 75-1051.
Amos I. Meyers, Baltimore, Md. (Terry Paul Meyers, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for respondents in Nos. 75-1051 and 75-1088.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER, BUTZNER, RUSSELL, WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges, sitting in banc.
PER CURIAM:
5We reversed the award made to William T. Adkins under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., as amended in 1972, in I.T.O. Corp. of Baltimore v. Adkins, 529 F.2d 1080 (4 Cir.1975), modified in banc, 542 F.2d 903 (4 Cir.1976). Thereafter, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment and remanded the cause “for further consideration in light of Northeast Marine Terminal Co., Inc. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249, 97 S.Ct. 2348, 53 L.Ed.2d 320 (1977).” 432 U.S. -, 97 S.Ct. 2967, 53 L.Ed.2d 1088 (1977).
Upon reconsideration, we are persuaded that the award to Adkins must be sustained because he satisfied both the status and situs requirements of the 1972 amendments to the Act, as interpreted in Northeast Marine, at the time that he was injured. We adhere to our view, however, that the Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Department of Labor, is not a proper respondent in a petition for review under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c), although upon application and for good cause shown he may be permitted to intervene therein.
AFFIRMED.
As part of these appeals, we sustained awards to Donald D. Brown and Vernie Lee Harris by an equally divided court. Certiorari in their cases was denied. Maritime Terminals, Inc. v. Brown, — U.S.-, 97 S.Ct. 2972, 53 L.Ed.2d 1092 (1977).

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: 2