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:
William D. LOVELL, Appellant, v. Walter N. TOBRINER et al., Individual Members of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Appellees.
No. 16777.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Oct. 1, 1962.
Decided Nov. 29, 1962.
Mr. Bernard Margolius, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Carleton U. Edwards, II, and Ralph H. Deckelbaum, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. John R. Hess, Asst. Corp. Counsel for District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp.
Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellees.
Before Edgerton, Bastían and Burger, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a District of Columbia fireman, was retired from service by the Police and Firemen’s Retirement and Relief Board on the ground he was disabled from continuing service due to disability resulting from an injury incurred other than in the course of duty. D.C.Code § 4-526 (1961). The order of the Retirement Board was affirmed by the District of Columbia Commissioners. Appellant contends that he was entitled to be retired under D.C.Code § 4-527 (1961) because his disability resulted from injuries incurred in the performance of duty. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees.
Appellant contended before the Board and the Commissioners that he first injured his back while on duty at a fire on March 3, 1948, and that subsequent aggravation of that service-connected injury led to his retirement disability. The memorandum opinion of the District Judge states that the reason the Board had not retired appellant under D.C.Code § 4-527 (1961), was that “the Board was not satisfied with the proof that the 1948 injury had actually been incurred, especially as there was no record of it in the personnel files of the Fire Department.” (Emphasis added.) Our examination of the record upon which the Retirement Board acted reveals that there was such a personnel record, although so cryptic in form as to have little meaning until explained, as appellant’s counsel do in their brief in this court. Appellant’s personnel file contained the following notation: “3-2-48 Lumbo-sacral strain, Box 9322.” Both parties agree that the “Box 9322” entry refers to the 1948 fire at which appellant then claimed he injured his back carrying the 275-300 pound body of a fire victim.
Since it is apparent from the record that what may well be a critical, if not controlling, item of evidence before the Retirement Board was not taken into consideration by that Board in reaching its decision, we remand to the District Court so that the ease may in turn be sent back to the District of Columbia Commissioners for reconsideration in light of all the evidence. New legislation recently enacted should also be considered if found applicable.
Remanded with instructions.
. A fireman retired as the jesult of service-connected disability receives a larger retirement annuity than if he is retired as the result of an injury incurred other than in the course of duty,
. Pub.L. No. 87-857, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1902).

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