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:
MACDONALD v. SCHENKEL.
No. 7732.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued Oct. 7, 1941.
Decided Oct. 13, 1941.
James J. Laughlin, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
D. Edward Clarke, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice and MILLER and EDGERTON, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant sued appellee, his brother-in-law, for false imprisonment. His complaint alleged that in July, 1939, he got into appellee’s car at the latter’s invitation to be taken to his home in Washington City, but instead was taken to the station house, turned over to the police, and without any charge being placed against him was confined in a cell from Saturday night until Monday. Appellee answered that on the day in question he was called by a police officer of the District of Columbia Women’s Bureau and advised that appellant’s wife (his sister) and two children had been evicted from their home for nonpayment of rent; that he went to the Bureau, saw his sister, was informed that her husband (appellant) had deserted her, and was asked by both the police and his sister to apprehend appellant in order that he should not leave the District without making provision for his family; that he thereafter located appellant, whom he found in a more or less drunken condition, and in good faith and without malice took him to the station house in order that he might be held until he was in fit condition to return to his wife and children.
The court, on motion of the plaintiff, entered judgment on the pleadings and the case was sent to a jury to assess- the amount of damages. In the ensuing trial, evidence was introduced by both parties, and the jury fixed the damages at $1. Appellant moved that the verdict be set aside as inadequate and a new trial awarded. This appeal is from the refusal of the court to grant the motion.
The single question is whether the damages awarded are obviously so inadequate as clearly to indicate that the jury was influenced by passion or prejudice. The answer must be in the negative. There was no allegation of special damages. We have said many times that when a question of fact is submitted to a jury under proper instructions, as to which there is neither objection nor exception, the verdict of the jury closes the question. Here the jury heard the evidence of both sides in relation to appellant’s detention, and it thereupon became their exclusive duty to assess his damages. All the circumstances considered, we cannot say as a matter of law that there was an abuse of discretion. Columbia Aid Ass’n v. Sprague, 50 App.D.C. 307, 271 F. 381; Washington Times Co. v. Bonner, 66 App.D.C. 280, 293, 86 F.2d 836, 110 A.L.R. 393; Ramsey v. Ross, 66 App.D.C. 186, 189, 85 F.2d 685; Schnaufer v. Price, Tex.Civ.App., 124 S.W.2d 940; Salo v. Smith, 25 Cal.App. 295, 143 P. 322; Wegner v. Risch, 114 Wis. 270, 90 N.W. 168; Bergeron v. Peyton, 106 Wis. 377, 82 N.W. 291, 80 Am.St.Rep. 33; Henderson v. McReynolds, 60 Hun. 579, 14 N.Y.S. 351; Taylor v. Davis, Tex.Sup., 13 S.W. 642. Certainly, under the circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in denying appellant’s motion. 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: 0