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:
Glynn H. GOODMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Appellees.
No. 19654.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Feb. 25, 1966.
Decided March 10, 1966.
Mr. Donald H. Dalton, Washington, D. C. , for appellant.
Mr. Charles L. Owen, Asst. U. S'. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and Mrs. Ellen Lee Park, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Wright, McGowan and Lev-enthal, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant signed a resignation from his Civil Service position as electrician at the National Bureau of Standards after he was advised that, unless he did, separation proceedings based on alleged misconduct would be instituted against him. After an application to withdraw the resignation was denied by the Bureau, an appeal was taken to the Civil Service Commission. The Appeals Examining Office of the Commission advised Goodman by letter that his election to resign rather than face removal proceedings precluded any right of appeal he might otherwise have. Twenty-nine months later appellant appealed within the Commission to the Board of Appeals and Review. On a record made up of affidavits, written argument and the administrative record of the Bureau, the Board held, that the resignation was voluntary and binding and that the Appeals Examining Office decision to decline jurisdiction was correct. Appellant then sought relief in the District Court which granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment.
In Dabney v. Freeman, 123 U.S.App. D. C.-,358 F.2d 533 (decided December 28, 1965), a case involving the voluntariness of a resignation by a Government employee, we approved a remand by the District Court to the Civil Service Commission “with directions to conduct further administrative proceedings, including an oral hearing, relating to the manner of [appellant’s] separation from Government service.” The hearing accorded the employee by the Commission on remand in Dabney was an evidentiary one at whiGh the employee was represented by counsel and at which all parties to the resignation episode, including the employee, testified.
We believe that, in Government employee separation cases where the issue of voluntariness with respect to a resignation is raised, there should be a hearing before the Commission similar to that approved by this court in Dabney. Only in this way can the facts with reference to the alleged promises and coercion be developed with any degree of reliability. We therefore remand this case to the District Court with instructions to remand it to the Commission for a Dab-ney-type hearing.
Remanded for further proceedings.
. It should be noted that the District Court disposition of this case was prior to our opinion in Dabney. In addition, mo request was made in the District Court to remand this case to the Commission for a hearing on voluntariness.

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