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:
Page Ann McINCROW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARRIS COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Metropolitan Transit Authority, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 88-6056
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 28, 1989.
Page Ann Mclncrow, Houston, Tex., pro se.
Paula J. Alexander, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Before GEE, WILLIAMS and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
GEE, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Page Ann Mclncrow (Mcln-crow) sued Harris County, Texas, the City of Houston, and Houston’s Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) for discrimination based on age, race, and sex. Mcln-crow alleged that because of her characteristics, Metro refused to hire her in 1981, 1982, and 1985. Metro filed a motion for summary judgment and Mclncrow responded. After hearing argument on the motion, the district court granted Metro summary judgment. Mclncrow timely appealed.
In its summary judgment motion, Metro noted that Mclncrow failed to state under which legal theory she was proceeding. Assuming Mclncrow was suing under Title VII, Metro contended that 1) Mclncrow’s failure to obtain a right-to-sue letter precluded the district court from addressing all of her claims, See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), (f)(1); 2) her claims of discrimination in 1981 and 1982 were time-barred by Title VII; and 3) laches precluded her claims of discrimination in 1981 and 1982. Assuming Mclncrow was suing under the Age Discrimination Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., Metro argued 1) that Mcln-crow’s failure to obtain a right-to-sue letter precluded the district court from addressing all of her claims, see 29 U.S.C. § 626(d); and 2) laches precluded her claims of discrimination occurring in 1981 and 1982. Assuming that Mclncrow was suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Metro argued that 1) her claims of discrimination occurring in 1981 and 1982 were barred by a) the applicable statute of limitations, and b) laches; 2) section 1981 provided no remedy for alleged age and sex discrimination; and 3) Mclncrow could not show adequately the requisite discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for Metro without stating its reasons for doing so.
“Although nothing in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, governing summary judgment, technically requires a statement of reasons by a trial judge for granting a motion for summary judgment, we have many times emphasized the importance of a detailed discussion by the trial judge.” Heller v. Namer, 666 F.2d 905, 911 (5th Cir.1982) (footnote omitted.) “When, [however], we have no notion of the basis for a district court’s decision, because its reasoning is vague or simply left unsaid, there is little opportunity for effective review. In such cases, we have not hesitated to remand the case for an illumination of the court’s analysis through some formal or informal statement of reasons.” Myers v. Gulf Oil Corp., 731 F.2d 281, 284 (5th Cir.1984) (footnotes omitted).
In this case Mclncrow asserted three instances of discrimination, possibly under three different statutory schemes. Metro offered nine arguments in support of its motion for summary judgment. The district court granted Metro’s motion for summary judgment without stating its reasons for doing so. Under these circumstances we are unable to review the district court’s decision in an effective manner. Therefore, the order of the district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to permit the district court to state the reasons for its decision.

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