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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert MYERS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Eugene R. HOWARD, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles ADDISON, Appellant.
Nos. 12444, 12496, 12498.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 2, 1968.
Decided Jan. 24, 1969.
George F. Griffith (Court-appointed counsel), Fairfax, Va., for appellant in No. 12,444.
Harry P. Friedlander, Arlington, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), for appellant in No. 12,496.
Bruce G. Campbell (Court-appointed counsel), Fairfax, Va., for appellant in No. 12,498.
Stefan C. Long, Asst. U. S. Atty. (C. V. Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge:
These three defendants were jointly indicted and tried upon a charge of receiving and concealing heroin in violation of the narcotics laws. We affirm their convictions.
Armed with arrest warrants for the lessee of an apartment in Alexandria, Virginia, and another individual, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, accompanied by Alexandria detectives, gained lawful access to the apartment. They testified that two of these defendants were seated in front of a coffee table, upon which there was a quantity of heroin, together with needles, syringes and other supplies in connection with its use. These two, the agents testified, jumped up in apparent alarm upon the entry of the officers. The third defendant was also in the living room, and in his shirt pocket there were additional envelopes containing heroin.
Each of the defendants offered a lame explanation for his presence. One said he had entered the apartment for the purpose of calling a taxicab. The second said he had come down from New York to seek a job of a man named “Spoon,” who had no other known name. He had telephoned Spoon, after which, at Spoon’s direction, he had been picked up in the District of Columbia and carried to the apartment in Alexandria, presumptively to await Spoon’s arrival. The third said he went to the apartment to borrow some money and, while waiting there watching television, had been requested by a man named “Eddie,” no other name known, to hold a package for him, the contents of which were unknown to the defendant. Eddie was not otherwise identified.
The defendants offered no corroborating witnesses.
We think the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and we find no abuse of the District Court’s discretion in denying the pretrial motions for severance. The jury was not bound to accept the feeble, unsupported explanation by each defendant of his presence. Since they were arrested together under joint charges and jointly indicted, they were properly tried jointly, notwithstanding the fact that each may have suffered to some extent from the unsavory character of his codefend-ants to the extent that that was revealed at the trial. The latter circumstance is not alone sufficient to require the grant of separate trials; it is but one circumstance which the District Judge may take into account, and is not lent great weight when each of three codefendants, because of the claimed unsavory character of the other two, claims prejudice in being put to a joint trial.
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