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:
STEPHENS et al. v. UNITED STATES. THE F. H. RUSSELL.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 24, 1929.
No. 5293.
Walter J. Gex, of Bay St. Louis, Miss., and Wm. B. Grant, of New Orleans, La. (Gex & Russell, of Bay St. Louis, Miss., on the brief), for appellants.
Alex C. Birch, U. S. Atty., and J. E. Meredith, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Mobile, Ala.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
WALKER, Circuit Judge.
The American gas motorboat F. H. Russell was decreed to be forfeited under a libel which contained allegations to the following effect:
On the application of the owner of said vessel the deputy collector of customs of the port of Biloxi, on March 17, 1924, allotted and assigned to that vessel the number A-829, she then being a vessel of less than 5 net tons. On September 3, 1927, the Coast Guard seized the F. H. Russell while she was in the navigable waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and then having aboard a cargo consisting of 227 cases of two 5-gallon containers each of alcohol. At the time of such seizure, such changes and alterations had been made in said vessel by her owner that her net tonnage had been increased from less than 5 tons to 11.53 net tons. When the vessel was seized she was not licensed, and no license for her had been applied for. By an agreed statement of facts the above-mentioned allegations were admitted.
One of the grounds on which the forfeiture was sought was a violation of the following statute: “Whenever any certificate of registry, enrollment, or license, or other record or document granted in lieu thereof, to any vessel, is knowingly and fraudulently obtained or used for any vessel not entitled to the benefit thereof, sueh vessel, with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, shall be liable to forfeiture.” 46 USCA § 60. Under the law providing for numbering vessels, a record of the number is kept in the customhouse of the district in which the owner or managing owner resides. 46 USCA § 288. Within the meaning of the above set out statute, the number allotted to a vessel is to be considered a record or document granted in lieu of a certificate of registry, enrollment, or license. A vessel not registered, enrolled, or licensed, but having only a number allotted pursuant to the statute, is not authorized to be employed in trade, foreign or coasting. 46 USCA § 251.
When the F. H. Russell was seized, she was employed in trade, either foreign or coasting. When the vessel was so- changed as to become one of between 5 and 20 tons, she was subject, after the making of proscribed sworn statements, to be licensed to be employed in trade, and, if she had been so licensed, would have been subject to be forfeited for being employed in a trade other than the one for which she was licensed. 46 USCA §§ 262, 325. When the vessel, after having been changed as above stated, was employed in trade, she was not entitled to the benefit of the number allotted to her as above stated. It appears that that number was knowingly used for a vessel not entitled to the benefit thereof. Any one participating in that use was charged with knowledge of the laws governing the use of the vessel in trade, and such participation manifests a purpose to evado those laws, or frustrate the proper administration thereof. The use of the number for such illegal purpose was fraudulent, though financial loss to the government was not involved. Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479, 30 S. Ct. 249, 54 L. Ed. 569, 17 Ann. Cas. 1112; United States v. Tynan (D. C.) 6 F.(2d) 668. Under the admitted state of facts the vessel was subject to be forfeited.
The decree 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: 2