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:
DRYDEN v. UNITED STATES.
No. 12658.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Jan. 3, 1944.
H. D. Kissenger, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Otto Schmid, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Maurice M. Milligan, U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before THOMAS and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges and MOORE, District Judge.
THOMAS, Circuit Judge.
The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for the violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 400, and he appeals.
The indictment in one count charged, in the language of the statute, that the appellant transported a girl under the age of 18 years, to-wit, IS years of age, in interstate commerce upon the line and route of a common carrier, from Loveland, Oklahoma, to Kansas City, Missouri, with the intent and for the purpose of inducing, enticing and compelling her to engage in prostitution.
After trial the defendant was adjudged guilty and sentenced “to a period of 10 years in an Institution to be designated by the Attorney General; said sentence to begin upon the expiration of any sentence heretofore imposed, particularly the sentence of three years imposed by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.”
'The case was submitted in this court on written brief for the appellant. The only point argued is that the sentence is excessive, and no authorities in support of appellant’s contention are cited. It is argued that the appellant is 63 years of age and that the 10-year sentence imposed by the trial court added to the 3-year sentence imposed by the state court makes 13 years, which is beyond the punishment intended by Congress, “and at least said terms should have been to run concurrently.” The record does not disclose the nature of the case, referred to in the state court, but we may take judicial notice that it was not a prosecution for violation of the federal Criminal Code.
The statute provides that upon a conviction for its violation a defendant “shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.” The discretion. thus delegated by Congress is committed to the trial court, not to this court, and a sentence within the statutory limit is not reviewable, Feinberg v. United States, 8 Cir., 2 F.2d 955, 958, “unless the penalty prescribed is clearly and manifestly cruel and unusual.” Welch v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 132 F.2d 434, 436. Here the sentence imposed is not only within the statutory limits, but, considering the aggravated nature of the crime, the court cannot say that it is cruel and unusual.
Although the alleged excessive penalty is the only error argued on this appeal, we have, because of the age of the appellant and the unusual and evil nature of the offense, reviewed the entire record; and finding no error the judgment 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: 0