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:
STANTON v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
No. 2487.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Oct. 16. 1942.
Clara Stanton pro se.
Joseph J. Smith, Jr., Asst. Chief Counsel, of Washington, D. C. (W. T. Kelley, Chief Counsel, J. B. Truly, Carrel F. Rhodes, Maurice C. Pearce, and James W. Nichol, Attys. for Federal Trade Commission, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.
By this appeal petitioner challenges a cease and desist order issued by the Federal Trade Commission, directing her to cease and desist from disseminating any advertisement by use of the United States mails or by means in commerce representing that petitioner’s preparation was a cure or remedy for obesity or that it had any therapeutic value in the treatment of obesity, or from disseminating any advertisement that uses the name “Anti-Fat Tablets.” The appeal challenges the sufficiency of the findings to sustain the order.
Petitioner placed her formula in evidence. It consists of the following ingredients :
Po. Ext. Pokeberries 1/8 gr.
FI. Ext. Bladder Wrack 1/2 min.
Potassium Iodide 1/8 gr.
Rochelle Salt 1/2 gr.
Iodine (Keysall) 1/24 min.
Carbonated Vegetable 3/8 gr.
Calcium Carbonate 1/8 gr.
Sugar Milk qs 3 gr.
The Commission’s original findings gave her formula as consisting of the following: Po. Ext. Pokeberries 1/8 gr.
FI. Ext. Bladder Wrack 1/2 min.
Potassium Iodide 1/8 gr.
Rochelle Salt 1/2 gr.
Iodine (Keysall) 1/24 min.
Carbonated Vegetable 3/8 gr.
Calcium Carbide 1/8 gr.
Sugar Milk qs 3 gr.
The contention made is that the order directing her to cease and desist is based on the finding that her remedy contained as an ingredient calcium carbide, whereas admittedly it contained no such ingredient.
One of the constituent elements of petitioner’s remedy was calcium carbonate. Throughout the hearing the attorney for the Commission referred to this element as calcium carbide. One of the medical experts of the Commission, Dr. Rees, used the term calcium carbide. He testified that calcium carbide is a reducing acid, but that the amount in the formula was inert and would have no effect. Calcium carbide is a crystalline solid made by heating lime and carbon together in an electric furnace. It is quite obvious that while the doctor used the term “calcium carbide,” he must have had in mind and was testifying concerning calcium carbonate. That the term “calcium carbide” was inadvertently used when calcium carbonate was in the minds of the witnesses and the Commission is evidenced by the testimony of Dr. Kemper when he testified: “Calcium carbide — no, calcium carbonate — is an astringent.” Dr. Connor testified concerning the effect of calcium carbonate. From this it appears that the Commission had before it the testimony concerning the effect of calcium carbonate, an ingredient in petitioner’s formula, and that it inadvertently used the term “calcium carbide” in its original findings upon which the order was based. When the typographical error thereafter was called to its attention, it properly corrected the error by a nunc pro tunc order making its finding conform to the undisputed testimony in the case.
It is also urged that the Commission’s experts testified that they were not familiar with Iodine (Keysall), one of the ingredients of petitioner’s preparation. Dr. Rees did testify that he did not know what Key-sall was unless it was a preparation similar to Lugol’s solution of iodine. Keysall is a trade name of an iodine solution and is substantially the same as Lugol’s solution of iodine. This was understood by the witnesses and the Commission. The testimony is uncontradicted that the amount of iodine in petitioner’s preparation did not constitute an active dose and had no therapeutic value.
The evidence fully supports the finding of the Commission, and the order will therefore be enforced.

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