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:
Petition of ATLANTIC GULF & WEST INDIES S. S. LINES et al. Appeal of FEDERAL SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO.
No. 323.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 20, 1931.
Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & MeGrann, of New York City (Cletus Keating and Edwin S. Murphy, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Burlingham, Veeder, Fearey, Clark & Hupper, of New York City (Chauncey I. Clark and P. Fearson Shortridge, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
PEE CUEIAM.
In these limitation proceedings, the Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company filed a claim on its own behalf, as owner of the tug Federal No. 2, and on behalf of the charterer and erew of the tug for salvage services rendered while the steamship Agwisun was on fire on December 11, 1926, at the Eobins Dry Dock, Brooklyn, N. Y. The Agwisun was a steel tank steamer, length 429.3, breadth 59.2, depth 33.2; her tonnage was 10,600 dead weight, 6,784 gross, and 4207 net. She was classed by Lloyds X100 A-l before the explosion. The tug Federal No. 2, measured length 95, beam 24%; depth 12; her tonnage 178 gross, and 29 net. She had a erew of five men on board at the time of the salvage services. The Agwisun had been taken out of dry dock and was on the southeast side of the pier directly adjacent to the dry-dock. She was moored bow in with her port-side to the pier. Her stern projected well out into the stream. The master of the tug observed and heard an explosion and fire on the vessel, and immediately went full speed toward her. The erew set up the pumps for operation; the No. 2 arrived alongside before any other assistance, and rescued the erew and repairmen from the stern of the vessel and labored to prevent further explosions by extinguishing the flameé in the blazing drip barrel, playing water on the flames wherever seen, and on the heated plates and the structure of the vessel. The importance of this as a preventive was recognized by witnesses. There was danger of further explosions, for there was gas aboard the vessel even after the explosion which had taken pljce. In performing the services, the tug and crew incurred risks which should be recognized in ascertaining the amount to be awarded for salvage.
The vessel was valued at $341,395; the tug at about $70,000 at the time. The services were meritorious, and the amount awarded of $1,000 is insufficient. An allowance of $3,000 we think fair under all the circumstances. The salvage awarded should be in a sum sufficient to reward the salvors and to encourage them and other seamen to render prompt service under similar peril in the future. The Blackwall, 10 Wall. (77 U. S.) 1, 19 L. Ed. 870; The Niels Nielsen, 277 F. 164 (C. C. A. 2); Huasteca Petroleum Co. v. United States, 27 F.(2d) 734 (C. C. A. 2).
The decree will be modified.-

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