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:
Rebecca WILSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James W. WEBSTER et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 26674.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 10, 1972.
John M. Sink, Santa Barbara, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
George P. Kading, County Counsel, Michael R. Dougherty, Deputy County Counsel, Santa Barbara, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Laurence R. Sperber, Los Angeles, Cal., amicus curiae.
Before MERRILL and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and PLUMMER, District Judge.
Honorable Raymond E. Plummer, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
KOELSCH, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs appeal from the District Court’s judgment, 315 F.Supp. 1104, dismissing their civil rights class action [42 U.S.C. § 1983] by which they sought to obtain injunctive relief against the sheriff, the district attorney, and other public officials of Santa Barbara County, California.
In the spring of 1970, student unrest in the Santa Barbara area had erupted into riotous violence on several occasions. By June 6, county officials determined that a state of emergency existed, and promulgated emergency regulations, including a curfew in Isla Vista, a section of the county in which a large number of students resided and where a number of the violent incidents had taken place. Within several days after the curfew had been imposed, Santa Barbara county sheriff’s deputies, aided by sheriff’s deputies from Los Angeles County and by California Highway Patrol officers, arrested and booked several hundred Isla Vista residents on charges ranging from unlawful assembly to arson.
On June 15, plaintiffs filed a complaint against the law enforcement officers and officials of the county, alleging that the defendants had, unlawfully and without any justification, arrested, physically abused, and otherwise mistreated the plaintiffs and those they represented. Plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain defendants from further lawless conduct; in addition, plaintiffs sought an order from the court directing the state officials to cancel the arrest records of all the members of the class who had been acquitted of criminal charges or against whom such charges had been dismissed.
The matter proceeded no further than a hearing on plaintiffs’ application for preliminary injunctive relief. That hearing was conducted solely on plaintiffs’ affidavits and defendants’ counteraffi-davits. The court concluded that, in light of the sharp conflict in the affidavits, it would not issue a preliminary injunction. However, the court went further, and dismissed the action in its entirety.
We are satisfied that the District Court acted properly in refusing preliminary relief and in dismissing the action insofar as it related to preventive injunctive relief. The record shows that repetition in the future of any official misconduct of the kind alleged was highly unlikely, and plaintiffs’ proof was lacking in any showing of imminent future injury. The school year had ended, the student population in Isla Vista was accordingly greatly diminished, the curfew ordinance had been rescinded, none of the plaintiffs or their class members were then incarcerated or were facing criminal charges, and no official threats were being made. As this court recently said in Halvonik v. Reagan, 457 F.2d 311, 313 (9th Cir. 1972): “Where the allegedly unlawful conduct has terminated, the party seeking a determination on the merits must establish that the case nevertheless has not been rendered moot; that controversy and adversity between the parties nevertheless continues. To do so he must show the likelihood of a recurrence of the conduct.
However, we conclude that the District Court should not have summarily dismissed the action with respect to the claim for relief relating to arrest-record cancellation. Nothing in the current conditions rendered that claim moot. See United States v. McLeod, 385 F.2d 734, 753 (5th Cir. 1967). The court should have held a full hearing on the issue and afforded plaintiffs an opportunity to show, if they were able, that those records should be expunged, for their continued existence may seriously and unjustifiably serve to impair fundamental rights of the persons to whom they relate. The fact, noted by the District Court, that the records are “state records,” did not put them beyond federal control, even though the area is a sensitive one involving delicate policy considerations. See United States v. McLeod, supra; Wheeler v. Goodman, 306 F.Supp. 58 (W.D.N.C.1969); Hughes v. Rizzo, 282 F.Supp. 881 (E.D.Pa.1968). Nor was the District Court correct in saying that “[t]here is no contention that [the records] are incorrect and [that] there are no facts alleged which would justify the court in taking such action.” The plaintiffs’ allegations, in our opinion, were sufficient to tender an issue and to require a full inquiry; the transcript of the hearing on plaintiffs’ application for interlocutory relief makes it clear that plaintiffs’ showing there was not exhaustive and did not constitute all the proof which they would have produced at the hearing on the merits.
It follows that the judgment must be vacated and the matter remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

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