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:
FLOYD S. PIKE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, INC., Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, Respondent.
No. 75-1314.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Nov. 14, 1975.
Decided June 24, 1977.
William H. McElwee, III, North Wilkesboro, N. C. (McElwee, Hall & McElwee, North Wilkesboro, N. C., on brief), for appellant.
Robert K. Salyers, Jr., Atty., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C. (William J. Kilberg, Sol. of Labor, Benjamin W. Mintz, Associate Sol. for Occupational Safety and Health, and Michael H. Levin, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH,' Chief Judge, and BUTZNER and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This petition for review of a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission involves two issues: first, whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 denied the petitioner, Floyd Pike Electrical Contractor, Inc., a trial by jury in violation of the Seventh Amendment, and, second, whether the violation of safety standards by the petitioner’s foreman could be imputed to the petitioner.
Since the question of the Act’s constitutionality was pending before the Supreme Court, we deferred disposition of the petition until the Court decided this issue. The Court has now ruled that the Seventh Amendment is not a bar to the imposition of civil penalties by an administrative tribunal as authorized by the Act.
In the meantime, while this petition for review was pending before us, the Commission decided Secretary v. Engineers Construction, Inc., 20 OSAHRC Rep. 348 (1975). There, the Commission ruled that an employer is not responsible for its supervisor’s unauthorized acts. That decision appears to be inconsistent with the law previously applied to this case. Indeed, one commissioner has suggested that Engineers seems to overrule the decision in this case that a foreman’s violations can be imputed to his employer. See Engineers, 20 OSAHRC Rep. at 352 (Cleary, Commissioner, dissenting). See also Ocean Electric Corp., OSHRC Docket No. 5811, 1975-76 OSHD 23,992, 23,993-994, n.5 (dictum).
We, therefore, vacate the commissioner’s judgment and remand this case for reconsideration in light of Engineers. If the Commission decides to reaffirm, it should explain (a) why the case does not conflict with Engineers; or (b) if the case cannot be reconciled, why it adheres to its ruling. If it decides that its judgment should be modified, it should explain the reasons for its change of view.
Vacated and remanded.
The Commission’s decision is reported as Secretary v. Floyd S. Pike Electrical Contractor, Inc., 15 OSAHRC Rep. 302 (1975).

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