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:
McNEELY v. MAYOR AND BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF CITY OF NATCHEZ.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 31, 1925.)
No. 4485.
Commerce <@=>55, 63 — City without power to prohibit operation of interstate ferry or exact license fee for privilege.
While municipal corporations may adopt and enforce reasonable regulations for the safety and convenience of the public using ferries, and may fix reasonable rates to be charged in carrying passengers, vehicles, and freight from their own shores, they cannot prohibit the operation of interstate ferry, nor exact a license fee for the privilege of landing or taking on passengers, vehicles, etc.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi; Edwin R. Holmes, Judge.
Bill for injunction by S. B. McNeely against the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Natchez. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
L. T. Kennedy, of Natchez, Miss., and Hugh Tullis, of Vidalia, La., for appellant.
Luther A. 'Whittington and Wilmer Shields, both of Natchez, Miss., and J. B. Brunini, of Vicksburg, Miss., for appellees.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, S. B. McNeely, filed his bill, seeking interlocutory and final injunctions to prevent interference by the mayor and board of aider-men of the city of Natchez with his operation of a ferry on the Mississippi river between Natchez, Miss., and Vidalia, La. The ease was heard on the application for the interlocutory injunction, and from an adverse ruling this appeal is prosecuted.
There is no dispute as to the material facts, which are these: McNeely is the owner of three ferryboats, and for something over 20 years has been operating a ferry between Natchez and Vidalia, for which privilege he paid a license fee to each town. He also owns real property suitable for ferry landings on the river front, both at Vidalia and Natchez, and the necessary floating landing stages. His contract with Natchez has expired, and there is some question as to whether his license from Vidalia has been forfeited; but that is immaterial, as the same argument applies to both towns.
In June, 1924, the city of Natchez adopted an ordinance providing for public ferries between the said two towns. The ordinance is rather lengthy, but may be thus epitomized: It prohibits the operation of a ferry from any other landing than that fixed in the ordinance, prescribes rates to be charged, schedules to be maintained, the size and character of boats to be employed, contemplates the granting of an exclusive privilege to operate the ferry for the term of 10 years, on payment of an annual fee of $2,-000, and imposes a penalty of $30 a day on any one else operating a public ferry from the city of Natchez without a franchise from the mayor and the hoard of aldermen.
Appellant alleges that his property, used in the operation of his ferry, is worth over $100,000, and it is admitted that it is worth $60,000. It is also admitted that his annual revenue exceeds $5,000, and that he will be totally deprived of 'it if the ordinance is made effective. It is the contention of appellant that it is beyond the power of the city of Natchez to exact a license fee for the operation of a ferry, as it would be a direct and unreasonable burden upon interstate commerce, and, furthermore, that the ordinance, if made effective, would deprive him of his property without due process of law. Appellees concede that the operation of a ferry across the boundary stream between two states is interstate commerce, but contend that an exception is made in the ease of ferries, and that the states have the right to grant exclusive franchises for ferries operating from their own shores, as Congress has never legislated on this particular subject.
This court had to consider practically the same question here presented in the case of Long v. Miller, 262 F. 362, and the decision in this ease might be rested on the exhaustive and well-considered opinion of the late Judge George Whitfield Jack, adopted by the court in that ease. Undoubtedly the earlier decisions tend to support the contention of appellees. But in the later cases, particularly Port Richmond Ferry v. Hudson County, 234 U. S. 317, 34 S. Ct. 821, 58 L. Ed. 1330, and City of Sault Ste. Marie v. International Transit Co., 234 U. S. 333, 34 S. Ct. 826, 58 L. Ed. 1337, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 574, it is clearly held that, while the states, and consequently municipal corporations acting under their authority, may adopt and enforce reasonable regulations for the safety and convenience of £he public using ferries, and may fix reasonable rates to be charged in carrying passengers, vehicles, and freight from their own shores, they cannot prohibit the operation of a ferry, nor exact a license fee for the privilege of landing or taking on passengers, vehicles, etc.
In justification of the ordinance it is the contention of appellees that it was designed to secure adequate service for the public at reasonable rates on ferries forming a connecting link between public highways in Louisiana and Mississippi; that the schedules maintained by appellant were inconvenient and insufficient and the rates charged by him were exorbitant; that if any one else was allowed to operate a ferry between Natchez and Vidalia, a ferry operated under the provisions of the ordinance would be unprofitable and could not be established, so that the public would suffer. Based on this, appellees say, as Congress has never legislated on the subject of ferries, it is within the province of the states to grant exehisive ferny franchises for the benefit of the irublie, and the burden on interstate commerce is negligible.
Practically the same question, although applied to interstate highways, was recently considered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Buck v. Kuykendall, 45 S. Ct. 324, 69 L. Ed.-, and Bush v. Maloy, 45 S. Ct. 326, 327, 69 L. Ed.-, both decided March 2, 1925, and the argument Was declared to be unsound. Under authority of the eases above cited it would seem clear that appellant was entitled to a preliminary injunction to prevent interference with the operation of his ferry from his own landing. He could not be required to secure a license from the city of Natchez for that purpose, and the city could not prevent his using his own property as a landing under the conditions disclosed by the record.
It is not contended that the ordinance was intended to apply to appellant, except to prohibit his operation of a ferry at all; so no question arises at this time as to any regulations provided by it. On the showing made, appellant was entitled to an interlocutory injunction to preserve the status quo pending a final determination of the suit on its merits.
The judgment appealed from is reversed, and the case remanded, with instructions to grant an interlocutory injunction as prayed for.

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