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:
LUIGI SERRA, INC. and Ansaldo S.p.A., Libelants-Appellees, v. SS FRANCESCO C, her engines, boilers, etc., Soc. Di Nav. “San Francesco” S.p.A. Angelo Scinicariello, Costa Line, Giacomo Costa Fu Andrea, Universal Terminal & Stevedoring Corp. and Frank J. Holleran, Inc., Respondents-Appellants.
No. 457, Docket 30040.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued May 10, 1967.
Decided June 7, 1967.
Alan S. Loesberg, New York City (Joseph T. McGowan, Hill, Rivkins, War-burton, McGowan & Carey, New York City, on the brief), for appellees.
Robert H. Peterson, New York City (Eli Ellis, Hill, Betts, Yamaoka, Freehill & Longcope, New York City, on the brief), for appellants Universal Terminal & Stevedoring Corp. and Frank J. Holleran, Inc.
John H. Cleveland III and Joseph M. Costello, New York City (Tallman Bissell, Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens and Costello, Ward, Tirabasso & Shea, New York City, on the brief), for appellants Soc. Di Nav. “San Francesco” S.p.A. and Costa Line, Giacomo Costa Fu Andrea, respectively.
Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting libelants recovery for damage done to two separately packaged turbine wheels, each weighing over 20,000 pounds, shipped on board the SS Francesco C in January 1961. The district court, in an opinion unofficially reported at 1965 AMC 2029, limited the liability of the vessel owner and time charterer to $500 per package in accordance with the requirements of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. § 1304(5), and held the stevedore, Universal Terminal & Stevedoring Corp., and the carpenter, Frank J. Holleran, Inc., liable for all damage to the cargo and for indemnification of all expenses incurred by the vessel owner and charterer. The stevedore and carpenter contend that the district court erred in holding that their negligence was the principal cause of the cargo damage.
The district court’s determination “on the issue of negligence does not fall within the ‘unless clearly erroneous’ ” test of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Mamiye Bros. v. Barber S. S. Lines, Inc., 360 F.2d 774, 776-778 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 835, 87 S.Ct. 80, 17 L.Ed.2d 70 (1966). However, our review of the findings of evidentiary fact on which the ultimate question of negligence depends is subject to the limitation of rule 52(a).
Here the evidence amply supports the trial court’s finding that Universal failed properly to discharge both its obligation to supervise the stowing and securing of the cargo and its responsibility for formulating the plan of stowage, in particular by failing to provide properly for the security of the two Ansaldo cases by adequate positioning and support. The evidence also establishes that Holleran, Inc. used inadequate materials for shoring, bracing and chocking the two cases and that Holleran, Inc.’s supervisory personnel failed properly to inspect the work done. We find no error in the district court’s conclusion that the stevedore and the carpenter were negligent in discharging their duties and that their negligence was the principal cause of the damage to the cargo.
There is no merit in appellants’ contention that the district court abused its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of libelants’ expert witness.
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: 6