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:
UNITED STATES ex rel. YOKINEN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION.
No. 327.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 11, 1932.
Irving Schwab, of New York City (Frank Scheiner, on the brief), for relator-appellant.
George Z. Medalie, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Ira Koenig, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
CHASE, Circuit Judge.
The authority for the order of deportation is found in 8 USCA § 137 (c) and (g). The Communist Party is well known to be a group which advocates tho overthrow of organized government by foi'ee. No claim is made that aliens who are members of it axe not subject to deportation. The appellant contends, however, that, as he was not a member at the time of his arrest, he could not be deported because of his previous membership ; that he was not shown to be affiliated with tho proscribed organization; and that tho proceedings which led to the order of deportation were unfair.
It is true that he was not a member of the Communist Party when arrested. He had recently been expelled because of bis attitude toward negroes, but that did not remove him from the reach of the statute. We have nothing to do with shaping the policy of the law toward aliens who come here and join a proscribed society. Congress has provided that “any alien who, at any time after entering the United States, is found to have been at the time of entry, or to have become thereafter, a member of any one of the classes of aliens enumerated in this section” shall be deported. 8 USCA § 137 (g). This alien concededly did become after entry a member of “one of the classes * * * enumerated” and from that time became deportable. Wo are urged to ameliorate the supposed harshness of the statute by reading into it words that Congress saw fit to leave out and interpret it to apply not to aliens who become members, but only to those who become and continue to the time of their arrest to bo members, of ong of the enumerated classes. If the words used in the statute were equivocal or the intention of Congress for any reason uncertain, there might be room for such a construction as that for which the appellant now contends. Perhaps the sufficient answer is that had Congress intended membership at the time of arrest to be the criterion it would have said so. It has the power to determine what acts of an alien shall terminate his right to remain here. Skeffington v. Katzeff et al. (C. C. A.) 277 F. 129. What it did do was to make the act of becoming a member a deportable offense without’ regard to continuance of membership and it did that in language so plain that any attempt to read in any other meaning is no less than an attempt to circumvent the law itself.
Since the appellant admittedly had, after entry, become a member of a proscribed organization, the undisputed evidence required the order from which this appeal was taken. All proof upon which he was held to be affiliated with the Communist Party was unnecessary, and while we do not mean to intimate that any evidence on that phase of the case was unfairly received and considered, in any. event it did him no harm.
Order 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