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:
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. CLAUGHTON.
No. 7555.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 15, 1935.
Rehearing Denied March 15, 1935.
T. Paine Kelly, of Tampa, Fla., for appellant.
D. C. McMullen, of Tampa, Fla., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges,
BRYAN, Judge,
This action, by a widow against a railroad company to recover damages for negligently killing her husband at a grade cross-ing> is here for the second time. On the former appeal, which was taken by the plaintiff, we held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a verdict in her favor, and consequently that the trial court erred in direct-ing a verdict for the defendant. Claughton v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (C. C. A.) 47 F.(2d) 679. On the trial which the defendant now seeks to have reviewed its motion for a directed verdict was denied, and there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.
The acts of negligence on which plaintiff relies were that the train was being run at a dangerously high rate of speed and failed to give warning by whistle or bell of its approach to the highway crossing. The evidence before us now is substantially the same as it was when the case was here before, and therefore need not be restated. As we are Still of opinion that it was ample to sustain a verdict for plaintiff, we hold untenable defendant’s repeated contention that it was entitled to the peremptory instruction, Defendant also contends that section 7.051, Compiled General Laws of Florida, which undertakes to create the presumption of negligence as against railroad companies upon proof of injury, and which the trial court applied in this case, is unconstitutional because it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. That section and the one following it, which provides for diminution of damages in cases of contributory negligence, are copied in the former opinion in this case; and also in Kirch v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (C. C. A.) 38 F.(2d) 963, where we rejected the same contention. The Supreme Court held in Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. Watson, 287 U. S. 86, 53 S. Ct. 32, 77 L. Ed. 180, 86 A. L. R. 174, that section 7051 did not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and in Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35, 31 S. Ct. 136, 55 L. Ed. 78, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 226, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 463, that the Mississippi statute, which provides that proof of injury inflicted by the running of locomotives or cars of a railroad company shall be prima facie evidence of negligence, violated neither the equal protection nor the due process clause of that amendment. Section 7051, as construed by the Florida Supreme Court, has the same meaning, in so far as is here material, as the Mississippi statute; and, although it was copied from a Georgia statute, the case of Western & Atlantic R. R. v. Henderson, 279 U. S. 639, 49 S. Ct. 445, 447, 73 L. Ed. 884, is not in point because the ruling there was that, as construed by the Georgia decisions, the statute '‘creates an inference that is given effect of evidence to be weighed against opposing testimony, and is to prevail unless such testimony is found by the jury to preponderate.” The statute as construed by the Supreme Court of Florida is controlling in this case. Kirch v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., supra.
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