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:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. NEWPORT DIV. OF WINTEX KNITTING MILLS, INC., Respondent.
No. 77-1645.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 7, 1979.
Elliott Moore, Marjorie S. Gofreed, Arnold B. Podgorsky, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., David Zorensky, Washington, D. C., Gilbert Cohen, Regional Atty., Region 10, N. L. R. B., Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
Stuart Linnick, Marc L. Silverman, Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, New York City, for respondent.
Before CELEBREZZE, BROWN and JONES, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This case is before the Court upon the application of the NLRB, pursuant to § 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, for enforcement of its order issued against the Newport Division of Wintex Knitting Mills, Inc. Basically, that order requires the Company to cease and desist from giving effect to a 1974 collective bargaining agreement with the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU), and to withdraw recognition from the ILGWU unless and until that union is certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of the employees. The Board’s order is reported at 223 NLRB 1293.
In mid-1973 the Company was confronted with rival organizational campaigns on behalf of both the ILGWU and the United Textile Workers (UTW). In July, 1973, the UTW filed a representation petition with the Board and the ILGWU intervened. In the course of campaigning in the latter part of 1973, both unions filed unfair labor practice charges against the Company. The Board postponed any election until the unfair labor practice charges were resolved.
While the unfair labor practice charges were pending, the ILGWU maintained an intensive organizing effort throughout 1974. Full time organizers were assigned to the Newport plant on a full-time basis. The ILGWU signed up new employees as they were hired, which was important because of the high turnover of the plant’s employees, due to the cyclical nature of the double knit business. In contrast to the ILGWU’s efforts, the organizing efforts of the UTW seemed to have ceased in early 1974.
The basic issue in this case is whether any real question existed concerning representation when the Company certified the ILG-WU as the exclusive bargaining representative. The Board’s position is that a substantial question did exist, and that therefore it was a violation of the Act for the Company to recognize the one union when the other union, the UTW, had shown an interest in representing the employees.
The Board’s position is predicated upon its policy enunciated in Midwest Piping and Supply, 63 NLRB 1060 (1945). Simply stated, the Midwest Piping rule prohibits an employer from recognizing or executing a collective bargaining agreement with one of two or more competing unions at a time when their conflicting claims raise a question concerning representation.
This Circuit has held that when one of two rival unions has convincingly demonstrated its majority status, without any help from the employer, Board orders against the employer finding an unfair labor practice on the basis of recognition and entering into a bargaining agreement will be denied. American Bread Co. v. NLRB, 411 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1969).
At the Board’s hearing no evidence was adduced to show any continuing efforts by the UTW to organize the employees. Equally important, no evidence was adduced to rebut the fact that the ILGWU had majority support as evidenced by its having obtained authorization cards from 96 of the 135 employees.
In sum, a review of the record considered as a whole does not contain substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that the Company violated the Act by recognizing and entering into a collective bargaining agreement with the ILGWU. Therefore, it is ORDERED that enforcement of the order of the National Labor Relations Board be and hereby is denied.

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