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:
William MASSEY, Deputy Commissioner Bureau of Employees’ Compensation, Appellant, v. D. C. TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC., Appellee. William Guinn WHITE, Appellant, v. D. C. TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC., Appellee.
Nos. 20898, 20902.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Oct. 16, 1967.
Decided Dec. 8, 1967.
Mr. Jack H. Weiner, Attorney, Department of Justice, with whom Acting Asst. Atty. Gen. Carl Eardley, Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and John C. Eld-ridge, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellant in No. 20,898. Mr. Prank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., entered an appearance for appellant in No. 20,898. Mr. Frederick H. Livingstone, Arlington, Va., entered an appearance for appellant in No. 20,902.
Mr. Richard W. Turner, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Wilmer S. Schantz, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Mr. Joseph H. Koonz, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Lee C. Ashcraft and Martin E. Gerel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for Division 689 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, AFL-CIO as amicus curiae.
Before Prettyman, Senior Circuit Judge, and Wright and Leventhal, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Employees’ Compensation determined that appellant White, an employee of appellee D.C. Transit System, incurred temporary total disability arising out of and in the course of his employment. Appellee employer sought review of the compensation order made under the Longshoreman’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, on the ground that the disability was less than total, but it did not cross-appeal from the District Court ruling that the disability determination was supported by the record. Upon learning that appellant White had, as a result of his injury, retired from his job and was drawing monies pursuant to a pension system to which both he and D.C. Transit System had contributed, the District Court sua sponte ordered that the compensation award be reduced by the amount of such payments. We reverse and remand with directions to enter judgment for appellants.
By holding that pension payments supplant compensation benefits the District Court has permitted that retirement agreement to work a waiver of statutory rights. We think this is contrary to Section 15 of the Compensation Act, which makes invalid any agreement that requires an employee to contribute to a fund maintained “for the purpose of providing compensation” or by which an employee is made to “waive his right to compensation.”
No action was begun or could have been successfully maintained to discontinue or refund pension payments. The pension plan expressly provides:
Allowances are in addition to any other income which an employee may have, especially in addition to any benefits provided under the Social Security Act, and any benefits received under workmen’s compensation.
Plainly the parties contracted for retirement benefits payable over and above compensation awards under the statute.
Reversed.
. 33 U.S.C. § 901 ff (1964). This Act is made applicable in the District of Columbia by 36 D.C.Code § 501 (1967).
. 33 U.S.C. § 915 (1964). In addition to declaring that such agreements are invalid, the Act provides that an employer who deducts amounts from an employee’s pay to support an agreement which abrogates statutory compensation is guilty of a misdemeanor.

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