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:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. TERRY COACH INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent.
No. 22715.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
May 1, 1969.
Allison W. Brown, Jr., Washington, D. C. (argued), Ralph E. Kennedy, Director, NLRB, Los Angeles, Cal., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Ma-noli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Franklin C. Milliken, Atty., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Hugh J. Scallon (argued), Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Levy, DeRoy, Geffner & Van Bourg, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Before CHAMBERS and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and VON DER HEYDT, District Judge.
The Honorable James A. von der Heydt, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
On May 3, 1966, a strike occurred at the plant of Terry Coach Industries in El Monte, California. Not all of the company’s employees participated, and the plant was not closed. As might be expected, some friction developed between strikers and non-strikers, and between strikers and third parties having business at the plant. When the strike ended on May 11, the company rehired all but six of the strikers. These six the management believed guilty of serious misconduct during the strike.
Subsequently, proceedings were begun before the National Labor Relations Board which resulted in an order that Terry Coach reinstate Willis Smith, one of the six, with full back pay. Terry Coach Industries, Inc., 166 N.L.R.B. No. 76 (June 30, 1967.) The present petition, to enforce that order, followed.
The strike in question was economic in nature, and it was stipulated that Smith had not been replaced at the time he sought reinstatement. The Board found as fact certain relatively minor acts of misconduct on Smith’s part, which it concluded did not justify refusing to reinstate him. We agree. However, the Board refused to find as fact certain alleged acts of misconduct of a more serious nature. Thus the issue before us is the 'accuracy of the Board’s findings of fact.
The scope of our review in such matters is limited. “The findings of the Board with respect to questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole shall be conclusive.” National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) (1964). While that standard of “substantial evidence” does not make of this court a rubber stamp for approving the Board’s findings, it does mean that where the evidence as a whole will reasonably support the Board’s findings, we may not deny enforcement, even though this court might reach an opposite conclusion were we to determine the matter de novo. N. L. R. B. v. Stanislaus Implement & Hardware Co., 226 F.2d 377, 381 (9th Cir. 1955). This is particularly true of questions involving the credibility of oral testimony. N. L. R. B. v. Luisi Truck Lines, 384 F.2d 842, 846 (9th Cir. 1967).
We have examined the record with care, and have concluded, on the record as a whole, that sufficient grounds exist to support the Board’s determination, and to satisy the statutory test of “substantial evidence.”
The Board’s order is enforced.

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