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:
DUVALL-WHEELER LIVESTOCK BARN et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 26308
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 8, 1969.
G. Hughel Harrison, Lawrenceville, Ga., for appellant.
Floyd M. Buford, U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., Robert M. Heier, Alan S. Rosenthal, Attys., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before WISDOM, COLEMAN, and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to new Rule 18 of the Rules of this court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804.
This consolidated appeal involves three separate actions in conversion brought by the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 against the appellants, to recover the value of certain livestock in which the government possessed a security interest.
Under the provisions of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1000 et seq., The Farmers Home Administration made four loans to Gerald L. Casaday. On each of those occasions, April 11, 1962, May 10, 1962, July 26, 1963, Casaday gave as security for the debt a Bill of Sale to Secure Debt. Each bill of sale, recorded on the day it was issued, conveyed to the government title to, inter alia, Casaday’s cattle, farm equipment, and crops. As with all such conveyances, the Administration promised to reconvey title to all the property “if borrower shall pay unto the government all amounts hereby secured and shall fully perform all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions of this conveyance * * * ” Each instrument then recited that it was intended as a conveyance and not as a mortgage and included a promise by Casaday not to sell, transfer, or otherwise allow the conveyance of the enumerated property without the written consent of the government.
Casaday then proceeded to have portions of the cattle covered by the bill of sale sold at public auction by the three appellants, each of whom is an auctioneer receiving commissions for the sale of livestock for others. At the time of each of the three sales Casaday owed the government $6,448.43 which has not been repaid; hence all of the cows auctioned off were, at that time, as they are now, security for his outstanding debt. The value of all of the livestock sold by the three defendants is $4,241.44.
Subsequently, the United States brought three separate actions in conversion against the appellant auctioneers. It was the government’s position that under federal law — which it maintained was controlling — the sale of the livestock at public auction for Casaday’s account, in disregard of the recorded bills of sale, was a violation of the government’s title and security. Each defendant maintained that it could not be liable for conversion under Georgia law unless it had actual notice.
A summary judgment was granted in favor of the government. The District Court held the appellants liable under both federal and Georgia law. On March 6, 1968, appellants filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 F.R.Civ.P. alleging the discovery of new evidence. By order of April 5, 1968, the District Court denied the motion. This appeal ensued.
The Judgment of the District Court must be affirmed, United States v. McCleskey Mills, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 1216.
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