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:
GALVESTON WHARF CO. v. PETERSON.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 20, 1926.)
No. 4535.
1. Railroads <©=307 (4) — Charge that, If circumstances made tracks crossing end of street going to dock dangerous, failure to maintain watchman might constitute negligence, held proper.
In suit for injuries received at night when crossing defendant’s tracks at end of street going to dock, charge that defendant was not required as matter of law to maintain watchman during night, but that, if circumstances of crossing made it extraordinarily and peculiarly dangerous, they might find that reasonably prudent person would maintain' watchman, and might find defendant negligent because of failure, held proper.
2. Railroads <©=350(5).
Question of negligence of wharf company, owning tracks at end of street going to dock, in not maintaining watchman at night, held for jury.
In Error to the District Court of the Unite'd States for the Southern District of Texas; Joseph C. Hutcheson, Jr., Judge.
Suit by Eric Peterson against the Galveston Wharf Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Ballinger Mills, of Galveston, Tex. (Terry, Cavin & Mills, of Galveston, Tex., on the brief), for plaintiff in' error.
W. E. Price, of Galveston, Tex., for defendant in error.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
This was a suit to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by defendant in error. The accident occurred in the city of Galveston at about 10 o’clock p. m., at the end of Twenty-Fifth street. It is in evidence that said street terminates at the harbor opposite the Mallory Dock, and the intervening space is occupied by tracks owned by plaintiff in error, over which freight cars are frequently switched day and night. During the day the public passes freely over the tracks from the end of the street going to the dock.
Defendant in error is a seaman, and at the time of the accident was going to his vessel, which was in dry dock in the harbor, and he expected to find a launch at the Mallory Dock to take him to her. A watchman is employed during the day to warn people crossing the tracks at the end of Twenty-Fifth street, and there was some evidence tending to show that one was also employed at night, but he professed ignorance of the accident. In the course of his charge the judge said:
“It has been pleaded that the defendant was guilty of negligence in not maintaining a watchman at this place. The court instructs you on that point that the defendant is not required as a matter of law to maintain a watchman, either permanently or temporarily, at a crossing, and he is not required to maintain a watchman at all, unless, either permanently or under circumstances of great movement, the place at which the movements are occurring is extraordinarily and unusually dangerous because of the circumstances surrounding the crossing, obstructions, etc., which may be near to or because of its being a populous and used crossing. If, under the circumstances of this ease, the jury finds that the circumstances of that crossing where the accident occurred was one which made it extraordinarily and peculiarly dangerous, then the jury may inquire as to whether a reasonably prudent person under such circumstances would have maintained a watchman. If the jury finds that there was such a condition and a reasonably prudent person would have maintained a watchman there, and if the jury finds that, had sueh a watchman been maintained there, such an injury would not have occurred there, then the jury will find the defendant negligent on that ground, or may find the defendant negligent.”
This is assigned as error. The question of negligence, under all the facts and circumstances of the case, is for the jury. We find no error in the charge complained of.
Other errors assigned are equally without merit.
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