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:
WILCOX v. UNITED STATES.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted October 2, 1928.
Decided November 5, 1928.
No. 4750.
Cornelius H. Doherty and Drank J. Kelly, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Leo A. Rover and William H. Collins, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
Certiorari denied 49 S. Ct. 253, 73 L. Ed. —.
MARTIN, Chief Justice.
The appellant was convicted and sentenced below upon three indictments. The first one charged appellant, together with one Tate and one Kloss, with feloniously breaking into the People’s Drug Store, and stealing certain money therein. The second indictment charged appellant, together with the same codefendants and also one Rawlett, with feloniously breaking into the store of Tobaek and Greenwald, with intent to steal the goods therein. The third indictment charged the appellant, together with Rawlett, Kloss, and Tate, with feloniously breaking into the store of the Old Dutch Market, and stealing certain money therein.
Rawlett pleaded guilty to both charges. Appellant, Tate, and Kloss were tried jointly, and convicted. Tate and Kloss have not appealed.
At the trial, below the defendant moved for a separate trial, which the court refused. The defendants then asked that the indictments be consolidated and tried together, which' was done. The defendants moved the court to furnish an official stenographer'to take the testimony at the trial, which was refused. Exceptions were taken to these rulings, but in our opinion the court acted within its discretion and without error.
Appellant claims that his counsel then requested the court to have the jury sworn on their voir dire, and that the request was denied. This statement, however, does not appear in the bill of exceptions. The appellant moved the court to add such a statement to the bill, and supported the motion by various affidavits. The court overruled the motion, and this ruling is assigned as error. The assignment is overruled upon the ground that this court is without power to correct any inperfeetions or misstatements that are alleged to exist in the bill of exceptions taken below and certified to this court. Kelly v. Moore, 22 App. D. C. 1; Columbia Heights Realty Co. v. Macfarland, 31 App. D. C. 112; Johnson v. United States, 38 App. D. C. 347.
Appellant’s counsel requested the court to allow him to question each and every juror as to whether any of them was in any way influenced by the action of the court in discharging a trial jury in a former case for bringing in a verdict contrary to the evidence. This request was denied, and there is no error in the ruling. Appellant’s counsel proposed to ask each juror separately his name and occupation, and the court refused to permit this. We think this was not'.error, in view of the fact that this was a matter-of record respecting the venire, and the record was available to appellant’s counsel.
It appeared during the progress of the trial that one of the jurors was acquainted with a witness in the ease, and, a motion for a mistrial was filed by appellant for that reason. The court denied the motion, and the evidence, which we need not set out, fully justified the ruling.
The testimony at the trial consisted in part of an alleged confession of appellant, which the latter claimed was extorted by threats and physical assaults. The court heard the testimony relating to this issue in the absence of the jury, and admitted the confession; but at the same time carefully instructed the jury to disregard it unless they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it had been freely and voluntarily made. The jury were justified by the evidence in finding that the confession was voluntary.
Various other exceptions were taken by appellant to the trial court’s rulings during the examination of the witnesses. We need not diseuss them in detail, for after a careful examination of them we are convinced that the court’s rulings were without error. Various instructions were presented to the court by the appellant with a request that they should be read as part of the court’s charge to the jury. The trial justice refused these requests. Nevertheless the court’s general charge to the jury was correct, and fully covered the issues in the ease. The appellant therefore suffered no prejudicial error because of this ruling. Complaint is made by appellant of the trial court’s attitude and demeanor toward appellant’s counsel during the trial, and also of alleged misconduct of the district attorney, but the record does not sustain these charges.
Upon a review of the entire record, the judgment below 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