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:
Peter DiBELLO, Appellant, v. REDERI A/B SVENSKA LLOYD, Appellee-Appellant, v. JOHN W. McGRATH CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 297, Docket 30794.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Jan. 12, 1967.
Decided Jan. 19, 1967.
Richard L. Fisch, Fisch, Kaplan & Goldman, New York City, for appellant.
William P. Kain, Jr., New York City (Joseph V. Fleming, Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, on the brief), for appellee-appellant.
Martin J. McHugh, McHugh & Leonard, New York City (Joseph F. McGold-rick, New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before WATERMAN, SMITH and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge:
Peter DiBello (appellant), a longshoreman, employed by the McGrath Corporation (McGrath), a stevedoring concern, was injured in the course of his work when he fell from a vertical steel ladder on board the M/S Iberia, owned by Red-eri A/B Svenska Lloyd (Rederi). Appellant sued the shipowner to recover for his personal injuries, and Rederi filed a third party complaint against McGrath.
At the trial, DiBello contended that the second rung of the ladder in question was defective, and the narrow issue for the jury was whether the ladder was reasonably fit for its intended use. In answer to special interrogatories the jury found that Rederi was not negligent, and that the ship was not unseaworthy. Judge Levet thereupon directed entry of a judgment in favor of Rederi and dismissed the third party complaint. DiBello appeals from that judgment.
Appellant’s primary contention is that he was denied a fair trial because the Court failed to preserve an atmosphere of impartiality. DiBello argues that Judge Levet participated excessively in the trial, citing the fact that appellant’s witnesses were interrupted by him 32 times. We cannot conclude in the circumstances of this case that this represents excessive participation. As we have noted, “A judge who conducts a jury trial has a duty to see that the facts are clearly presented and may ask pertinent questions of the witnesses to that end. He is not a mere passive spectator or moderator, though it goes without saying that he should exercise self-restraint and preserve an atmosphere of impartiality and detachment.” Pariser v. The City of New York, 146 F.2d 431, 433 (2d Cir. 1945). A careful examination of the record reveals that Judge Levet’s questions were pertinent and calculated to aid the jury by clarifying the witnesses’ testimony.
The record also fails to indicate any pattern of hostility toward DiBello. The fact that Judge Levet made a great many more adverse rulings against appellant than appellee, indicates, in this case, that the requests and objections by appellant were not sound, rather than that the judge was biased. Nor is there any merit to DiBello’s contention that the judge was generally argumentative or demeaning to appellant, his witnesses or his counsel. If, on rare occasion, Judge Levet’s remarks might better have been left unsaid, they were but separate and isolated instances, insufficient to contaminate the free air of an impartial tribunal or to necessitate reversal. Cf. Judge Kaufman, United States v. Kelly, 349 F.2d 720, 765-766 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 947, 86 S.Ct. 1467, 16 L.Ed.2d 544 (1966); United States v. Kahaner, 317 F.2d 459, 478 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 836, 84 S.Ct. 73, 11 L.Ed.2d 65 (1963).
DiBello also claims that it was error to allow McGrath to sum up to the jury. But, McGrath’s first line of defense against the shipowner’s claim of indemnity was to defeat DiBello’s claim against Rederi. It is clear that a third party defendant has the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses on the trial of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant. See, e. g., Hagans v. Ellerman & Bucknall S.S. Co., 318 F.2d 563 (3d Cir. 1963). It is irrelevant that Mc-Grath waived its right to jury on the separate issue of indemnity. Having the right to examine witnesses on the question of Rederi’s liability, it was within the judge’s discretion to allow McGrath to sum up to the jury and his exercise of this discretion was not abused in the present case.
Moreover, there is little merit to DiBello’s claim that his time for summation was improperly curtailed. As appellant admits, “there is no precise method of proving this.” Even his imprecise method which relies on when the “bells of the neighboring church sounded,” and the number of pages of the record given over to the summation fail to prove that DiBello’s requested time for summation was prejudicially, deliberately and intentionally reduced. Indeed, the transcript reveals only that the total summations by counsel for Rederi and McGrath consumed 29 pages, while DiBello’s summation was recorded in 22 pages.
Appellant’s other contentions are also without merit and may be dismissed summarily. It was not error for the Court to deny DiBello’s motion to strike all testimony which related to a ladder as being the exact ladder involved in appellant’s accident. Captain Hanson, master of the Iberia, testified that the ladder introduced in evidence was in fact the ladder from which DiBello fell. Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence presented to the jury to justify Judge Levet’s charge on contributory negligence and the jury’s ultimate finding that Rederi was not negligent and the ship was not unseaworthy.
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