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:
MASTRANDREA v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.
No. 8057.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued Nov. 17, 1942.
Decided Dec. 8, 1942.
Samuel V. Albo, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Henry Mustin, of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Samuel W. Pringle, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Dalzell McFall & Pringle, of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BIGGS, MARIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Marco Anthony Mastrandrea, for whose death the administratrix of his estate seeks damages, was for many years a crossing watchman for the defendant railroad company. While in the performance of his duties as watchman at a main line crossing in Carnegie, Pennsylvania, he was struck by the side of the locomotive of a rapidly moving freight train and received injuries which caused his death almost immediately. The crossing was frequently traversed by trains engaged in interstate commerce, as was the train whose locomotive struck him.
In order to save from harm several children of tender years, whose actions gave indication of their intent to enter upon the crossing forthwith, Mastrandrea placed himself in a position of danger, in relation to the oncoming freight train, from which position he was unable to extricate himself in time to avoid being struck. In thus laying himself open to great danger in order to protect others, without thought of his own safety, his conduct was truly heroic.
But the plaintiff’s suit for damages, which, under the circumstances, was necessarily based upon the right of action conferred by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., required proof showing the defendant guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the fatal injuries received by Mastrandrea. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the record in the case is barren of any facts which would justify a jury’s finding that the defendant company, its agents, or servants failed to exercise ordinary care either in the operation of the train whose locomotive inflicted the fatal injuries or in any other particular relating to the accident. We, therefore, have no alternative under the law but to affirm the judgment of the court below, which ruled to like effect.
From the standpoint of a recovery by law for the death of this faithful employee in connection with his employment the case portrays an unfortunate legal situation. As we have seen, no recovery can be had under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, since the plaintiff was unable to prove the defendant negligent. On the other hand, there is no Federal compensation law applicable to the employees of carriers of interstate commerce by rail. And yet, the exclusive applicability of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, under the circumstances obtaining in this case, precluded a claim by Mastrandrea’s dependents for compensation under the State Compensation Law, 77 P.S. § 1 et seq. Such a situation would seem to merit appropriate legislative consideration and correction.
The judgment of the District Court 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