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:
WOLPE et al. v. PORETSKY et al.
No. 8952.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.
Argued Feb. 7, 1946.
Decided April 3, 1946.
Mr. H. Winship Wheatley, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. H. Winship Wheatley, Jr., of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Louis Ottenberg, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Edwin Shelton, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Poretsky.
Mr. William C. Sullivan, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellees Arthur W. Machen, Trustee, and Thomas Machen.
Messrs. Vernon E. West, Corporation Counsel, District pf Columbia, and Chester H. Gray, Principal Assistant Corporation Counsel, both of Washington, D. C., entered appearances for appellees, members of the Zoning Commission, District of Columbia. Mr. Richmond B. Keech, formerly Corporation Counsel, of Washington, D. C., entered his appearance for appellees, members of the Zoning Commission when the case was docketed.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and CLARK, Associate Justices.
EDGERTON, Associate Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court setting aside, as arbitrary and unreasonable, an order of the Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia. The Commission’s order singled out lot 70/100 for special or “spot” zoning. It prevented appellee Poretsky, the owner of the lot, from building an apartment house. He brought this suit against the Commission and recovered judgment. But the Commission has not appealed. The appellants are owners of various houses and lots in the general vicinity of lot 70/100 who have been permitted to intervene. Wolpe v. Poretsky, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 141, 144 F.2d 505.
Lot 70/100 extends westward from 16th Street N. W. to the proposed 17th Street, along the south side of Shepherd Street, in Washington, D. C. From 1933 until November 7, 1941, when the Commission’s order was issued, the lot was zoned so as to permit the erection of apartment houses. The 16th Street front of the lot had never been zoned against apartment houses. The Commission’s Comprehensive Plan of Zoning had long made and still makes Shepherd Street, from 14th Street on the east to 17th Street on the west, the dividing line between a southern zone where apartment houses may be built and a northern zone which is restricted to single dwellings. Until the order in suit was issued, lot 70/100 was the north-west corner lot of the less restricted zone.
The lot is separated on three sides by a public park, and on all four sides by a park or a street or both, from all present and probable future housing. Appellee’s proposed apartment building will accommodate many more people than the single dwellings which might be built on the lot. They will all derive benefit from the park. No one will suffer the kind and degree of damage which an apartment house may inflict on its immediate neighbors when it has any. The lot is therefore an exceptionally appropriate site for an apartment house. Enforcement of the Commission’s order would greatly impair the value of the lot on which appellees have paid taxes for years and would not, as far as appears, increase the value of appellants’ property. We find nothing, either in the record or on a view of the premises, which tends to support the order. Even apart from the housing shortage, it would have borne no positive relation to the public welfare and would have been arbitrary and unreasonable. In view of the acute housing shortage it bore a negative relation to the public welfare. The District Court was clearly right in setting it aside, and the Commission has properly acquiesced in the correction of its error.
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