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:
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The DETROIT AND TOLEDO SHORE LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19556.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 22, 1970.
John M. Curphey, Toledo, Ohio, for defendant-appellant; Robison, Curphey & O’Connell, Toledo, Ohio, Robert L. Livesay, Detroit, Mich., on brief.
Richard M. Colasurd, Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee, Mulholland, Hickey & Lyman, Toledo, Ohio, of counsel.
Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE and COMBS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In 1943 the parties to this proceeding signed an agreement known as the Eastern Diesel Agreement of 1943, under which Shore Line undertook to employ firemen on practically all diesel engine runs. The agreement had no termination date. Neither party has ever explicitly served notice of the revocation of this agreement, and up to the point of the instant litigation, firemen had in fact been employed on diesel engine runs, except to the degree they were eliminated by the national arbitration award, dated November 26, 1963, handed down by Arbitration Board #282 established in 1963 pursuant to Public Law 88-108, 88th Cong., 77 Stat. 132 (1963). Under the terms of this award, Shore Line firemen were eliminated on Shore Line diesel engines inside the state of Michigan, but were kept on such engines inside the state of Ohio because of the Ohio “full crew” law. This state law requires the use of firemen on all freight runs on “main tracks” and switch engines in Ohio. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 4999.07 and 4999.08 (1954).
In 1967 and 1968 Shore Line made certain physical revisions of its Lang yard, the southern terminus of its line in Ohio straddling the Michigan state line. In so doing Shore Line created a hump yard for automatic classification of freight cars, added some switch tracks, and redefined the former “main” tracks in Ohio so that the previous “main” tracks now became “yard” tracks. Shore Line then served notice that it no longer was going to employ firemen on the previous “main” tracks within the state of Ohio.
The Brotherhood thereupon promptly filed this petition for injunctive relief alleging a violation of the 1943 Agreement and a failure on the part of Shore Line to follow the notice and mediation procedures established by federal law. 45 U.S.C. §§ 152,156 (1964).
The United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, granted the relief sought by petitioner. His opinion stated in part:
“Briefly stated, the contentions of the defendant are that when a new contract was negotiated between the parties in 1953, it completely superseded all former contracts, including the Eastern Diesel Agreement of 1943, which required the defendant to maintain firemen in diesels; that arbitration Award 282 enabled the defendant to abolish these positions, with limited exceptions, and it did do so, with respect to the runs in question, but the Ohio full crew law prevented this abolition from becoming effective; that the reconstruction of the switch yards made the Ohio full crew law no longer applicable to these runs, and defendant was thus at liberty to abolish them; and that the dispute involved here involves interpretation of the terms of the contract between the parties, and hence is a ‘minor dispute’ over which this Court has no jurisdiction.
“Considering these matters in the order above presented, it is the Court’s conclusion that the Eastern Diesel Agreement of 1943 was not superseded by the new general contract of 1953, but continues to be, and still is, in force between the parties. The fact that it was specifically included in the 1943 agreement, but not in the 1953 agreement, is of little probative value on this point, nor is the list of agreements remaining in effect after the 1953 agreement which is attached as a last page to D. ex. 14, particularly since this document does not purport to be anything more than a list, is undated, and the parties signing do not set forth their official positions.
“The Eastern Diesel Agreement is by its terms a self-perpetuating and continuing agreement. It deals with one of the most serious controversies in the whole realm of labor law, in which the unprecedented Congressional action was taken which led to Award 282. To suggest that such an agreement could be terminated by mere silence or failure to refer to it is totally illogical. Such an argument has as an inescapable tenet that the Washington Job Protection Agreement of 1936 was also terminated in 1953 by reason of non-mention in that later agreement.
“Of importance, too, on this issue is the fact that the defendant continuously sought, years after the execution of the 1953 agreement, to get rid of its obligations under the Eastern Diesel Agreement. If it were no longer in effect between the parties, why take action to eliminate it? That the parties continued to treat it as being in force after the 1953 agreement is shown, for example, by the episode of the hiring and discharge of fireman Abrams. (R. 181, 220-221) This Court finds that the 1943 Diesel Agreement, as well as the 1936 Washington Job Protection Agreement, were not terminated in 1953, but are instead currently in full force and effect.” Bhd. of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R. R., 294 F.Supp. 727, 729-730 (N.D.Ohio 1968).
We have read the contract provisions relied upon by appellant and find ourselves in general accord with the District Judge’s interpretation set forth above — particularly his holding that “mere silence” does not accomplish revocation.
We have no doubt that this controversy is a “major dispute,” Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 65 S.Ct. 1282, 89 L.Ed. 1886 (1945), and that the District Judge had authority to enjoin respondent’s unilateral self-help measures until the “status quo” provisions of the Railway Labor Act cited above had been exhausted. See Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R. R. v. United Transportation Union, 396 U.S. 142, 90 S.Ct. 294, 24 L.Ed.2d 325 (1969) (Dec. 9, 1969).
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