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:
RODESCH v. KIRKPATRICK COAL CO.
No. 5239.
Circuit Court o£ Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 13, 1930.
Canada, Williams & Russell, of Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.
R. G. Brown, Abe D. Waldauer, and Chas. L. Glascock, all of Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.
Before DENISON, KNAPPEN, and SI-MONS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Rodeseh, as purchaser, made an oral contract at Chicago1 with Fabbri, as agent for the Kirkpatrick Company, to buy from it a quantity of! coal. The terms were confirmed by Fabbri in a'letter sent from Chicago1 upon the letterhead of the Kirkpatrick Coal Company, which letterhead stated the business of the coal company, the location of the mines, and that the general offices were at Memphis, Tenn. It bore an overprint in red, “L. F. Fabbri, Manager, Chicago, HI.” The lettersheet also carried, at a considerable distance down the page, printed in capital letters in two- lines, certain restrictive provisions. The letter was in form as follows:
“August 24, 1926.
“Rodeseh Company, Dixon, Illinois.
“Gentlemen:”
“ALL ORDERS AND AGREEMENTS ARE CONTINGENT UPON STRIKES. CAR SUPPLY AND CONDITIONS UNAVOIDABLE OR BEYOND OUR CONTROL. QUOTATIONS AND AGREEMENTS NOT BINDING UNTIL ACCEPTED BY MEMPHIS OFFICE IN WRITING. ALL SALES ARE MADE STRICTLY F.O.B. CARS MINES AND ANY FREIGHT RATES QUOTED ARE FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND NOT GUARANTEED.
“Attn. Mr. R. A. Rodeseh:
“Confirming our conversation, ete.” • * *
“[Signed] Kirkpatrick Coal Company,
“L. F. Fabbri, Resident Mgr.”
The only question needing decision is whether the provision that the prices and terms quoted should not be binding until confirmed by the Memphis office, is to be given effect. They were not so confirmed. In the action brought by Rodeseh in the court below to recover damages for the coal company’s refusal to fill the order, the court thought there was no completed contract, and directed a verdict for defendant. We approve this action. A line of eases holds that obscurely printed conditions upon a letterhead will not be read into a contract written thereon. B. F. Sturtevant Co. v. Fireproof Co., 216 N. Y. 199, 110 N. E. 440, L. R. A. 1916D, 1069. Another line of eases holds that such printed additions, if sufficiently prominent, must Be taken as a part of the contract. Poel v. Brunswick Co., 216 N. Y. 310, 322, 110 N. E. 619. We think this ease must be put in the latter class. The conditions are printed very legibly, although in small typo. They are in capital letters. They are so placed that they become physically a part of the letter itself. They follow the date and the salutation. It is not open to one who sends or receives such a letter to say that he skipped and did not read the matter which was thus plainly interposed, in the body of the letter. There is in this matter nothing inconsistent with the remainder of the letter. The fact that Fabbri, probably with the company’s consent, called himself “Resident Mgr.” does not imply authority to over-ride any one of the three restrictions found in this insertion.
The judgment is affirmed.
Note: The late Judge KNAPPBIN participated in the hearing and decision of this ease, hut did not see the opinion.

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: 99