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 A & H TRANSPORTATION, INC., for the Organization of a Special Grand Jury.
No. 9017.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 4, 1963.
Decided June 7, 1963.
Harry Waller, as President of A & H Transportation, Inc., pro se.
Arthur J. Murphy, Jr., Attorney, Department of Justice (Lee Loevinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert B. Hummel, Attorney, Department of Justice, on brief), for the Department of Justice.
Before HAYNSWORTH and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BARKSDALE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, A & H Transportation, Inc., sought to have the District Court of Maryland convene a special grand jury under instructions to investigate alleged violations of the antitrust laws by the major oil companies doing business in the Baltimore area. The application was considered in an opinion filed April 18, 1963, written by Chief Judge Thomsen of the District Court of Maryland, with the concurrence of Judges Watkins, Northrop and Winter, the other Judges of that Court. The petitioner has sought to bring the matter here by appeal. Since it clearly is an unappealable order, we have treated the notice of appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the District Court of Maryland to convene a special grand jury and require it to conduct the kind of investigation the petitioner seeks.
It appears that Mr. Waller, the petitioner’s president, has presented complaints of alleged violations of the antitrust laws to the Department of Justice. Though there has been some official inquiry, no indictments have been returned or requested. Mr. Waller has also written to the foreman of a regularly convened grand jury in Baltimore. That grand jury did not care to hear him, however, though his communications were passed on to the District Attorney. Earlier, one of Mr. Waller’s companies, Savon Gas Stations, had brought a civil antitrust action against Shell Oil Company, in which the defendant prevailed.
When its petition was presented to the District Court, the petitioner also presented a certified copy of the record in an unrelated action, Del-Way Petroleum Company, Inc., et al., v. Cities Service Oil Company, a ease in the District Court of Maryland which was ended before trial.
We have considered all of the foregoing matters in addition to the petitioner’s allegations that the major oil companies are engaged in conspiracies to fix prices in the Baltimore area, are selling gasoline at prices below their cost, and are engaging in other .practices designed to or having the effect of driving independent oil dealers out of business.
The authority to convene or discharge a grand jury is vested in the District Court. **8 Its exercise of its discretion to convene, or not to convene, a special grand jury, or to discharge a grand jury, is not reviewable on appeal, and a Court of Appeals cannot by mandamus, or any other extraordinary writ, inject itself into the discretionary area reserved to the District Court.
We find here no such abuse of discretion as would justify issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus. It is evident from the Court’s opinion that it gave careful consideration to the petitioner’s request and to the alternative remedies, including a civil action for treble damages, available to the petitioner.
Since we find no abuse of the discretion lodged in the District Court, the petition for a writ of mandamus must be dismissed.
Dismissed.
. Savon Gas Stations No. 6, Inc. v. Shell Oil Company, D.C., 203 F.Supp. 529, aff'd. 4 Cir., 309 F.2d 306.
. Rule 6, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
. In re Texas Co., 91 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 201 F.2d 177; Morris v. United States, 5 Cir., 128 F.2d 912.

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