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:
Harry Robert STEED and Mary R. Steed, his wife, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Appellants, v. Bert ROUNDY, Appellee.
No. 7857.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
March 1, 1965.
Schall, Sceresse & Addis, Thomas D. Schall, Jr., Albuquerque, N. M., for appellants.
Modrall, Seymour, Sperling, Roehl & Harris, and Frank H. Allen, Jr., Albuquerque, N. M., for appellee.
Before LEWIS and SETH, Circuit Judges, and DAUGHERTY, District Judge.
DAUGHERTY, District Judge.
In this action plaintiffs seek to recover damages from the defendant as the result of an accident involving a car driven by the plaintiff, Mary R. Steed, and owned by the plaintiff, Harry Robert Steed. The plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, joins the above named plaintiffs under rights of subrogation because of an insurance policy issued by it on the said car under which it made payments by reason of the accident involved herein. The said car collided with a horse owned by the defendant on a highway in Valencia .County, New Mexico.
Two New Mexico statutes appear to have been enacted pertaining to this type of situation. The earlier statute in point of time as to enactment is 64-18-62(b), NMSA 1953 Comp., which reads in part as follows:
“(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to permit livestock to wander or graze upon any fenced highway at any time, or during the hours of darkness to drive livestock along or upon any highway, which is normally used by motor vehicles.”
The other statute, enacted after the foregoing statute is 40-23-4, subd. B, NMSA 1953 Comp., which reads in part as follows:
“B. It shall be unlawful for the owner or custodian of live stock to negligently permit or allow his live stock to run at large upon any part of the public highways of this state which are fenced on both sides.”
The later statute specifically requires proof of negligence on the part of the owner of livestock running at large on the public highways before liability would attach. 34 A.L.R.2d § 5, p. 1291. The earlier statute in using the word “permit” also requires that negligence of the owner must be established before liability would attach. 34 A.L.R.2d, § 4, p. 1289, states:
“Where the particular statute involved provides that the owner shall not ‘permit’, ‘allow’, or ‘suffer’ his animals to run at large, the courts have generally held, or recognized, that statutes of this type are not violated in the absence of at least negligence by the owner of the animals.”
Moreover, it is the rule that when there are two acts upon the same subject, they must stand together, if possible, but if repugnant in any of their provisions, the later act operates as a repeal of the earlier one so far and only so far as its provisions are repugnant to those of the earlier act. See Kemp Lumber Co. v. Howard, 10 Cir., 237 F. 574; Veterans’ Foreign Wars, Ledbetter-McReynolds Post No. 3015 v. Hull, 51 N.M. 478, 188 P.2d 334; Stokes v. New Mexico State Board of Education, 55 N.M. 213, 230 P.2d 243; State v. Montiel, 56 N.M. 181, 241 P.2d 844; State v. Valdez, 59 N.M. 112, 279 P.2d 868; and Alvarez v. Board of Trustees of La Union Townsite, 62 N.M. 319, 309 P.2d 989.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, it is necessary in New Mexico that negligence be shown on the part of the owner of livestock running at large upon the public highways before liability will attach against him for damages or losses sustained by others by reason thereof.
In the case before us, the evidence establishes that a white mare belonging to a neighbor of the defendant kicked open the pasture gate of the defendant in which he kept his horses, including the one involved in the accident herein; that the defendant exercised due care in the construction, maintenance and inspection of his gates and fences in the vicinity of the accident; that the neighbor owning this white mare lived approximately two miles from the defendant and kept said white mare at that location; that while the white mare had a propensity to open or kick down gates and otherwise get in with or cause horses to be released from their enclosures, the defendant herein had never encountered any such activities on the part of said white mare on his premises until the occasion here involved; the evidence fails to show precisely when the white mare kicked open the gate or exactly when or for how long the horse or horses of the defendant were thereby released onto the highway; the evidence also fails to establish any knowledge on the part of the defendant of his horses being released and running at large on the highway until after the accident involved herein.
In this state of the New Mexico law and the facts of this case, the trial court held that the plaintiffs had failed to produce evidence establishing negligence on the part of the defendant in connection with one of his horses running at large on the highway and being involved in the collision with the plaintiffs’ car. The trial judge held that the accident was due to a combination of circumstances beyond the reasonable foreseeability or control of the defendant and for which he should not be held responsible. From the record before us, it appears that these findings of* the trial judge are proper and are amply supported by the evidence herein.
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