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:
KOFOUROS et al. v. GIANNOUTSOS et al. THE MENTOR.
No. 5869.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
May 17, 1949.
Rehearing Denied July 21, 1949.
See 175 F.2d 734.
Burt M. Morewitz and J. L. Morewitz, Newport News, Va. (Morewitz & More-witz, Newport News, Va., on the brief) for appellants.
Roy L. Sykes and R. Arthur Jett, Norfolk, Va., for appellees.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This was a libel in admiralty filed by Greek seamen against a Greek vessel. Li-bellant Kofouros sought recovery of damages for refusal to grant him hospitalization when thg vessel arrived at Hampton Roads and for false imprisonment. The other libellants sought to recover the wages due them at Hampton Roads when they were logged as deserters, together with the double wages provided by 46 U.S.C.A. § 596, and damages for failure to return their seamen’s books. The District Judge declined to assume jurisdiction of the case of Kofouros on the ground that the controversy was one between a foreign ship and a foreign seaman where the interests of justice did not require that jurisdiction be assumed by an American court. He held, however, in the interest of an expeditious disposition of the matter, that the facts did not warrant recovery by libellants if jurisdiction were assumed. As to the other li-bellants he held that they were not entitled to recover. We think that in holding that there was no liability to any of libel-lants, he was unquestionably correct.
As to the libellant Kofouros, the judge has found on ample evidence that he was not in need of hospitalization; and it appears that he remained aboard the vessel and was subsequently paid off in full and discharged at Antwerp. On the charge of false imprisonment, it appears that he was detained aboard the vessel at the direction of the Immigration authorities. As to the other libellants, it appears that they signed on in Cardiff for a round trip voyage to the United States and return to a port of Europe; that, notwithstanding this, they asked to be discharged at Hampton Roads and that the master agreed to discharge them there if the Immigration authorities would consent; that the Immigration authorities would not consent and the master ordered the seamen to return to the vessel, which they failed to do; that, after delaying the sailing of the vessel for six or seven hours to afford them an opportunity to return and after notifying them that they must return or be logged as deserters, the master proceeded on his voyage and logged them as deserters and thereafter deposited their seamen’s books at the first port of call and the balance due on their wages with the Department of the Greek Marine Minister, as required by Greek law. That none of appellants were entitled to recover anything under the circumstances is too clear for argument.
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