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:
STONE et al. v. BANK OF WHITECASTLE.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 17, 1927.)
No. 4808.
1. Appeal and error <®=»850(2) — Judgment after waiver of jury is conclusive, in absence of motion for judgment and special findings of fact.
Judgment on the merits after waiver of jury is conclusive, where there was no motion for judgment and no special findings of fact, precluding examination of record to determine if result was justified by facts shown.
2. Appeal and error <@=»544( I) — Assignments to admission or exclusion of answers to interrogatories present nothing for review, where judge declined to sign bills of exceptions.
Assignments to admission or exclusion of answers to certain interrogatories present nothing for review, where District Judge declined to settle certain bills of exceptions as being too late, and declined, when signing bill of exceptions containing stenographic report of evidence and documentary evidence, to certify that evidence presented was all evidence adduced, or true and correct statement thereof.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Louis H. Burns, Rufus E. Poster, and Benjamin C. Dawkins, Judges.
Suit by T. A. Stone and others against the Bank of Whiteeastle. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error.
Affirmed.
John B. Warren, of Houston, Tex. (Cross & Moyse, of Baton Rouge, La., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.
P. G. Borron, of Baton Rouge, La., and Stuart R. Smith, of Beaumont, Tex. (Lay-cock, Borron & Layeoek, of Baton Rouge, La., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and POSTER, Circuit Judges.
POSTER, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs in error, plaintiffs below, brought suit to recover $14,600 as compensation for services alleged to have been rendered in procuring a purchaser for certain timber belonging to the defendant. After settlement of the pleadings the jury was waived, and the case submitted on the merits to Hon. Charlton R. Beattie, District Judge. Judge Beattie died before deciding the case, and by agreement it was then submitted to his successor, Hon. Louis H. Bums, District Judge, on the record as made up before Judge Beattie. After due consideration, Judge Bums entered judgment in favor of defendant in error and dismissed the suit.
In submitting the ease, neither side moved for judgment, nor was there any request for special findings of fact. No findings of fact were made by the District Court, although a brief opinion of Judge Bums appears in the record, which, of course, cannot take the place of special findings of fact. The judgment entered is in the nature of a general verdict.
There are 18 assignments of error. Eleven of them may be considered as attacking the judgment as contrary to the law and the evidence, for various reasons. As there was no motion for judgment, and there are no special findings of fact, the judgment rendered is conclusive on the parties, and we are not at liberty to examine the record, to determine whether the result was justified by the facts shown. Bank of Waterproof v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (C. C. A.) 299 P. 478.
The other 7 assignments run to the admission or exclusion of answers to certain interrogatories filed in evidence. These assignments are wholly unsupported by bills of exceptions. It appears from the record that 7 bills of exception on which these assignments might have been based were presented to Judge Bums, and he declined to settle and sign them on the ground that they were presented too late. The eighth bill of exceptions is simply a narrative of the course of the case; that is, that it was first heard before Judge
■ Beattie and later before Judge Burns. This bill of exceptions recites that the stenographic report of the evidence made by a stenographer, Sherrer, and the documentary evidence on file in the office of the clerk of the court, is the evidence upon which the court rendered judgment.
While this evidence appears in the record, it is objected to by defendant in error as not being complete because of the omission of certain correspondence between the parties, and the bill of exceptions does not make the evidence in the record part of the bill. In fact, it appears that, although Judge Bums signed this bill, he declined to certify that the evidence presented was all of the evidence adduced, or that it was a true and correct statement of the evidence upon which the case was heard. This, of course, disposes of the errors assigned.
However, with a desire to do justice, should there be any error apparent, we have examined the record, and have reached the conclusion that the objections to the admission and exclusion of testimony are without merit, and that on the whole case the District Court decided rightly.
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: 0