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:
PENNSYLVANIA GLASS SAND CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 26326.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 1968.
Max Nathan, Jr., New Orleans, La., Robert Lewis, New York City, for petitioner.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before COLEMAN, GOLDBERG and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
At 3:23 p. m. on June 28, 1968, petitioner filed a petition to review a Board order in this court. Prior to that time, at 9:17 a. m. of the same day, the charging party before the Board, General Teamsters and Allied Workers Local Union No. 992, had filed a petition to review the same order in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a), respondent filed with this court a motion to transfer this cause to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The motion to transfer is granted.
Our grant of the motion is without prejudice to the rights of petitioner to move the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to dismiss the Union’s petition on the grounds that it is not an aggrieved party, or to request that Circuit to transfer the entire case back to this court, or to any other Circuit, for the “convenience of the parties in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a).
. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2112(a):
“If proceedings have been instituted in two or more courts of appeals with respect to the same order the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned shall file the record in that one of such courts in which a proceeding with respect to such order was first instituted. The other courts in which such proceedings are pending shall thereupon transfer them to the court of appeals in which the record has been filed. For the convenience of the parties in the interest of justice such court may thereafter transfer all the proceedings with respect to such order to any other court of appeals.”
. See J. P. Stevens & Co. v. N. L. R. B., 388 F.2d 892 (4 Cir.1967); Truck Drivers, etc., Local 728, Teamsters v. N. L. R. B„ 128 U.S.App.D.C. 216, 386 F.2d 643 (1967); International Union, United Automobile, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 126 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 373 F.2d 671 (D.C.Cir. 1967); Insurance Workers International Union v. N. L. R. B., 124 U.S.App.D.C. 8, 360 F.2d 823 (1966); Eastern Airlines v. C. A. B., 122 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 354 F.2d 507 (1965) ; Salerno-Megowen Biscuit Co. v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir. [No. 15,165, June 17, 1965], mot. for reconsideration denied [No. 15,165, Sept. 1965] ; Ball v. N. L. R. B., 299 F.2d 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 838, 82 S.Ct. 868, 7 L. Ed.2d 843 (1962); Local 2674, United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. N. L. R. B., 47 LRRM 2688 (D.C.Cir. 1960).
. If the D.C. Circuit granted a motion to dismiss, petitioner could request that this cause be returned to this court on the ground that it is the only reviewing court in which a valid petition was filed.

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