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:
J. L. KAMSLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO AMERICAN PUBLISHING COMPANY, Inc., DefendantAppellee.
No. 15097.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Oct. 11, 1965.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1965. (En Banc).
J. L. Eamsler, pro se.
Don H. Reuben, Lawrence Gunnels, Craig W. Christensen, Chicago, 111., for appellee.
Before ENOCH, EILEY and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.
ENOCH, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant, J. L. Eamsler, has taken this .appeal from grant of the motion to dismiss his complaint filed by the defendant-appellee, Chicago American Publishing Company, Inc., in the United States District Court.
The complaint was dismissed for failure to allege facts showing presentation of a question arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or a claim otherwise within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court. There is no diversity of citizenship here.
In this Court, although not in the District Court, the plaintiff contended that jurisdiction arose under Title 28, U. S. Code, § 1343, giving the federal courts jurisdiction over civil rights cases. In oral argument, plaintiff, appearing pro se, asserted that his complaint alleged facts which, although not so labeled in the complaint, would show violations of the Civil Rights Statutes, Title 42, U. S. Code, §§ 1983, 1985. We have carefully examined those allegations and we cannot agree.
Plaintiff contends in his first count that the defendant conspired to violate plaintiff's Constitutional rights to the end that he be denied a fair trial on criminal charges in the Criminal Court of Cook County; that the defendant is guilty of libel, and that the conspiracy was formed in retaliation for plaintiff’s suit against defendant for libel. In his second count, plaintiff lists a number of alleged errors in one of his criminal trials, which he states were the result of the conspiracy. He includes a third count for libel. Plaintiff seeks damages of $20 million on each of the three counts, with an additional $20 million punitive damages on the second count and $20 million exemplary damages on the third count.
The complaint contains a number of vague conclusory statements. It does not name any of the other parties to the alleged conspiracy who are charged with having made threats to the Trial Judge in the criminal case to induce him to deny plaintiff a fair trial.
Plaintiff previously brought a similar suit in the U. S. District Court, which was also dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction: No. 64 C 560, Kamsler v. Chicago American Publishing Co., Ine. Plaintiff’s appeal to this Court, No. 14831, was dismissed by order of this Court on January 18, 1965, for failure to comply with the rules of this Court.
Plaintiff does not deny defendant’s assertion that the same news articles on which plaintiff bases his present charge of libel were the subject of an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, No. 65 L 9807, Kamsler v. Chicago American Publishing Company, Inc., which was dismissed on June 17, 1965, when the Cook County Circuit Court found those news articles non-actionable. In the course of oral argument, plaintiff indicated that both his criminal convictions are pending on appeal in the Illinois Appellate Court where he is represented by competent counsel. Any errors in his trials presumably will be brought to the attention of that tribunal and dealt with there.
The order of the District Court must be affirmed.
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