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:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. REMINGTON RAND, Inc.
No. 153.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 1, 1938.
Robert B. Watts, of Washington, D. C., for National Labor Relations Board.
George H. Cohen, of Hartford, Conn., for Remington Rand, Inc.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case now comes up upon two motions: one by the Labor Board, the other by Remington Rand, Inc. That company with unexampled persistence once more seeks to use as a means of fending off enforcement of the Labor Board’s order, the settlement between itself and the American Federation of Labor, concluded on March 18th, 1937, under the auspices of the Secretary of -Labor. We need not consider, whether the settlement of differences between a union, duly accredited by the Labor Board, and an employer may never supersede an order of the Board. The Third Circuit in National Labor Relations Board v. Delaware & New Jersey Ferry, 90 F.2d 520, by a divided court held that it did; and it is perhaps possible to consider the Labor Board as having no interest in the controversy, independent of the wishes of the union which it recognizes as the proper representative of the men. Be that as it may, we do not see how it can be seriously argued that the settlement of March 18, 1937, was intended to supplant any part of the duties imposed by the Board’s order of March 17, 1937. On April 15, 1937, the company’s attorney wrote to the president of the Association of Machinists that the settlement should not “in any way waive the rights of any of the parties under the National Labor Relations Board’s decision * * * it being recognized that the National Labor Relations Board is not a party to this agreement and that any of the parties has a right as a matter of law to take such further action in that matter as may be advisable.” That left the Remington Rand Joint Protective Board free to stir up the Labor Board to enforce its order, and the Labor Board to respond, quite as though the settlement had not been made; the two did not indeed conflict, for enforcement of one neither cancelled the other, nor made impossible its performance. So far.as they overlapped, the settlement was no more than an expression of the company’s willingness to comply with its duties independently imposed by law; so far as the order prescribed more, it was unaffected; so far as the settlement must be read as comprehending all the relations of the parties it is a nullity. The motion to be relieved from the order of March 10, 1938, is denied.
The Labor Board moves to punish the company for failure to comply with that order. More than ten weeks have already passed since it was entered and those substitutions of employees which it directed had not yet been made when the motion came on to be heard. It is true that until May 23d, the company did not know that the Supreme Court would not grant certiorari, but its present position goes further; apparently it believes that the substitutions were not peremptorily required, in the sense that they must be carried out regardless of their effect upon the company’s business. That is a mistake; the order required the substitutions unconditionally, regardless as much of their effect upon the company’s business as of the hardship entailed upon those who must be displaced. The old hands are to be offered their former jobs as soon as they can be identified, and so far as the jobs remain: that is to say, so far as anyone else is performing the same, or substantially the same, services as they were performing, or any other services which they can perform. If this involves disturbance of the company’s business, it is no doubt unfortunate; but, having chosen to challenge the law, it must abide the loss. However, although we are not convinced that it is as yet disposed to conform, we will not impose any penalty for the moment. We recognize that the statute was still new, and that there were grounds for anticipating that the Supreme Court might wish to review our order. We will therefore deny the motion, but without prejudice to a renewal should the order not have been complied with within a reasonable time, which we fix at Friday, July 15th, 1938.
Motion for relief from the order of this court of March 10th, 1938, denied.
Motion to punish the respondent for contempt denied without prejudice.

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