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:
OLD KING COLE, Inc., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 13614.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 3, 1958.
Robert M. Rybolt, of Day, Cope, Ket-terer, Raley & Wright, Canton, Ohio, for petitioner.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., Frederick U. Reel, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before SIMONS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This matter was heard on a motion by the National Labor Relations Board for judgment on the pleadings. The case is here on a petition to review and set aside, vacate and annul an Order of the National Labor Relations Board and to dismiss the Board’s complaint against the petitioner.
The Board’s Order sought to be reviewed was to require the petitioner to cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the certified bargaining representatives of its employees.
After determination by the Labor Board that the discharge of four of the petitioner’s employees whose challenged votes were determinative of the representation election held in June, 1956, was an unfair labor practice and that said discharged employees’ votes must be counted, the Union, on March 7, 1957, was certified by the Board as the bargaining agent of the petitioner’s employees.
In April, 1957, the Company refused to bargain with the Union because: (1) a petition to review the determination by the Labor Board of the employees’ status was pending in this Court; and (2) such a change in the bargaining unit had taken place since the election as to raise a question whether the Union was the representative of the employees. On December 14, 1957, a cease and desist order was entered by the Board.
The second point is disposed of by the decision of the Supreme Court in Brooks v. N. L. R. B., 1954, 348 U.S. 96, 75 S.Ct. 176, 99 L.Ed. 125, that a representation election may not be held within one year of certification by the Board. See also N. L. R. B. v. Tennessee Coach Co., 6 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 907.
As to the first point, since this Court on January 7, 1958, in Old King Cole, Inc., v. N. L. R. B., 250 F.2d 791, found that the four employees were wrongfully discharged, the refusal to bargain in April, 1957, automatically became based upon an erroneous view of the law. That good faith is not available as a defense to a charge of refusal to bargain where the refusal is based upon an erroneous view of the law is supported by the decision in Taylor Forge & Pipe Works v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 227.
This last is, in the circumstances of this case, merely another way of stating that the filing of a petition for review of an order of the Labor Board does not operate as a stay of the Board’s order, which is consistent with Section 10(g) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. Section 160(g).
The motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore granted, and it is ordered that the cease and desist order of December 14, 1957, be and it hereby is enforced. It follows from the foregoing that the petition to review the Order of the Labor Board should and will be dismissed.

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