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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ewald Percival VAN WEST, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 71-1228.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Heard Feb. 3, 1972.
Decided Feb. 18, 1972.
Robert J. Griswold, San Juan, P. R., for defendant-appellant.
Jorge Rios Torres, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Julio Morales Sanchez, U. S. Atty., was on brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted of assaulting an officer of the Bureau of Customs while engaged in the performance of his official duties, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. Defendant, the pilot of a small twin-engined aircraft, was watching a customs officer search his airplane after its arrival at San Juan, Puerto Rico, from the Virgin Islands. He became agitated when the officer insisted upon inspecting a lunch sack, grabbed the sack, called the officer names and hit him in the face with a spray can. A complaint was filed in the district court charging defendant with violation of section 111, but thereafter he was indicted on a one-count indictment which did not mention section 111, but listed, instead, sections 113 and 1114. Section 1114 is used, in part, to designate officials the assaulting of whom is made a federal crime by section 111. See note, ante. It has no connection with section 113. Correspondingly, the body of the indictment was appropriate to section 111, and unrelated to section 113.
At the conclusion of the government’s case defendant moved for acquittal, claiming that the government had not proved maritime or territorial jurisdiction as required by section 113. The court determined that the use of section 113 in the indictment’s caption was a technical error, and ordered it changed to section 111. The trial then continued. Defendant was convicted, and he appeals.
We find defendant’s position lacking in merit. Under F.R.Crim.P. 7(c) the miscitation of a statute is not material if “the error . . . did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice.” See Gaunt v. United States, 1 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 284, 289, cert. denied 340 U.S. 917, 71 S.Ct. 350, 95 L.Ed. 662; United States v. Cook, 3 Cir., 1969, 412 F.2d 293, cert. denied 396 U.S. 969, 90 S.Ct. 451, 24 L.Ed.2d 434. See also Russell v. United States, 1962, 369 U.S. 749, 760-763, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240. Defendant here could not have been misled by the erroneous citation of section 113. Not only was it apparent on the face of the indictment that the reference to section 113 was erroneous, but from defendant’s counsel’s examination of the government witnesses it is clear that he was concerned with the specific allegations of the indictment, which set forth a case precisely within section 111. Defendant’s claim that he was misled by the penalty provision, which under section 111 is larger than under section 113, might be relevant if he had pleaded guilty, but it is meaningless when he went to trial. Defendant knew that he was being tried for the assault of a federal officer in the performance of his official duties. That was enough.
Affirmed.
“Whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of his official duties, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

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