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:
TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE CO. v. AUTOMOTIVE PARTS CO.
No. 7698.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 9, 1937.
• F. O. Richey, of Cleveland, Ohio (Wm. A. Strauch, of Washington, D. C., Richey & Watts, of Cleveland, Ohio,- and Strauch & Hoffman, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
Arthur C. Denison, of Cleveland, Ohio (Fay, Oberlin & Fay and Baker, Hostetler, Sidlo & Patterson, all of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MOORMAN, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.
MOORMAN, Circuit Judge.
There being no evidence in the record on the former appeal of any replacements of special parts or of' the circumstances under which any part had been sold, this court set aside the injunction and remanded the cause to the District Court to hear proofs and determine whether the carrying out of the defendant’s intention, as alleged in its answer, to continue to supply parts for corresponding parts in the patented construction would constitute contributory infringement as defined in the opinion (Automotive Parts Co. v. Wisconsin Axle Co. (C.C.A.) 81 F.2d 125). In view of that intention, the court, looking to the future, thought it fair to place upon the defendant the burden of showing that its contemplated sales would not be infringement. It was accordingly held that, unless the defendant offered evidence on the rehearing to show that the parts which it contemplated selling would be sold for no other purpose than repairs as defined in the opinion, the court should permanently enjoin it from making or selling them for any purpose. After the remand the defendant amended its answer and alleged that it had never sold or offered to sell any of the parts of the axle except the beveled gear pairs and the half axle shafts, that it had never sold either of those parts except to an axle owner who said that the corresponding part in his axle was broken or worn out, and that future sales which it desired and intended to make would be limited to owners who so stated.
As evidence of its intention not to make sales for constructing or reconstructing the axle, defendant introduced proofs to show that it had never sold any of the parts except the gear pairs and half axles, had never sold those parts together to the same purchaser or to any purchaser whom it knew or had reason to believe was engaged in constructing or reconstructing an axle. Witnesses for the defendant included its officers and store managers who sold the parts. These witnesses testified that many sales of the parts are made over a counter to replace a broken or worn-out part which is brought in and exhibited to the seller by the person desiring to make the purchase.
The court found that the defendant had never sold or offered to sell any part of the axle except the gear pair and half axle, that it had never sold both of those parts to the same purchaser at the same time, that it had never sold either one or the other with any knowledge or reason to suppose that the purchaser intended to use it for replacement in an axle in which the other parts were also to be replaced, and that it had no intention of making future sales except to the extent -and in the manner in which it had made them in the past. It further found that, where the owner of an axle replaces a broken or worn-out gear pair or half axle by a corresponding new part without making any other replacement, the new part after replacement does not so dominate the structural substance of the axle as to make it characteristically new. From these findings the court concluded that the intention of the defendant to carry and offer for sale the beveled gear pairs and half axles did not constitute threatened contributory infringement, and dismissed the bill. We think its findings and conclusions are right.
The decree is 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: 1