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:
ARKANSAS OAK FLOORING CO. v. PRITZEN.
No. 10727.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Jan. 27, 1937.
M. L. Reinberger, of Pine Bluff, Ark. (N. J. Gantt, Jr., of Pine Bluff, Ark., on the brief), for appellant.
William R. Donham, of Little Rock, Ark. (Arnold Fink, of Pine Bluff, Ark., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and BOOTH, Circuit Judges.
SANBORN, Circuit Judge.
G. F. Pritzen, as plaintiff, brought this action against the Arkansas Oak Flooring Company and Henry Clanton, its foreman, as defendants, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while in the employ of the company. The injuries were alleged to have occurred while the plaintiff was replacing a belt upon an end-matching machine in the company’s mill, at Clanton’s direction, and to have resulted from the negligence of the defendants. The action was commenced in the circuit court of Jefferson county, Ark., and removed by the defendant company to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The defendant company denied that it was negligent, and alleged that' the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and that the injuries complained of were occasioned by a risk of his employment which he had assumed. The plaintiff dismissed as to the defendant Clanton. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment entered thereon this appeal was taken.
The only error specified and argued was the failure of the court below to include in its charge the following instruc: tion to the jury: “In addition to the risks ordinarily incident to his employment, the plaintiff also assumed such extraordinary risks as were open' or apparent to him, and if you find from the evidence that the danger of replacing the belt was obvious to the plaintiff, then you are instructed that this danger was one of the risks assumed by him as an employee for which the defendant is not liable.”
While the record shows that this instruction was included in a list of requested instructions handed to the trial court by the defendant at the commencement of the trial, it fails to show that the defendant at any time directed the court’s attention to the instructions requested or secured from the court any ruling thereon, or that the defendant took any exception to the failure of the court to give the instruction which it is now claimed should have been given. It appears from the record that at the conclusion of the charge to the jury, the court said to counsel, “Anything further?” Counsel for defendant responded, “Nothing further.” There does not appear anywhere in the record a single exception to the charge or to the failure of the court to" give any requested instruction. Under the circumstances, there is nothing before this court for review. Hall v. Ætna Life Ins. Co. (C.C.A.8) 85 F.(2d) 447; United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 56 S. Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555; Garrett Const. Co. v. Aldridge (C.C.A.8) 73 F.(2d) 814.
The judgment 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: 1