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:
Leslie R. HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack R. DUCKWORTH, Warden and Indiana Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 88-2855.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued May 8, 1990,
Decided Aug. 9, 1990.
Allen E. Shoenberger, Grant Peters (law student), Loyola Law School, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner-appellant.
Kimberlie A. Forgey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Ind., for respondents-appel-lees.
Before BAUER, Chief Judge, MANION, Circuit Judge, and ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.
ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.
Leslie Ray Harris petitioned the district court by writ of habeas corpus claiming that, in determining that he violated prison disciplinary rules, the Indiana State Prison Conduct Adjustment Board deprived him of his procedural due process rights. Concluding that Harris failed to exhaust available state court remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), the district court denied his petition. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand.
I.
While serving an eight year term at the Indiana State Prison for robbery, Harris was found guilty by the Conduct Adjustment Board of committing battery upon another person. As a result, he was stripped of five hundred days earned credit time, reduced from Time Earning Class II to Time Earning Class III, segregated for one year, and transferred to a maximum security prison.
Harris asserts that the procedural rights guaranteed to him by Ind. Code § 11 — 11—5—5(a)(1)—(10), including the right to call favorable witnesses and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, were impermissibly denied to him. Claiming that he was barred from asserting his rights in Indiana state court, Harris petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana for a writ-of habeas corpus. Holding that potential remedies existed in the Indiana Declaratory Judgment Act, Ind. Code § 34-4-10-1 et seq. and the Indiana Rules of Procedure for Post-Conviction Remedies, Rule PC 1, § 1(a)(5), the district court dismissed Harris’ petition for failure to exhaust available state remedies.
II.
While it has been settled for over a century that a state prisoner must normally exhaust available state remedies before a writ of habeas corpus can be granted by the federal courts, Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3, 102 S.Ct. 18, 19, 70 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) citing Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 6 S.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886), when the district court dismissed Harris’ petition it was less than clear whether Indiana provided judicial review of individual decisions of the state prison disciplinary system. While in both Riner v. Raines, 274 Ind. 113, 409 N.E.2d 575 (1980) and Adams v. Duckworth, 274 Ind. 503, 412 N.E.2d 789 (1980) the Indiana Supreme Court made exceedingly clear that there was no constitutionally protected due process right to judicial review of the evidence presented to prison disciplinary boards to determine whether it was sufficient to support the decision reached, it remained less than clear whether the Indiana Court would also deny judicial review of alleged procedural errors made in connection with disciplinary proceedings. One year later in Bates v. State, 426 N.E.2d 404 (Ind.1981) the Indiana Supreme Court, citing Riner and Adams, slightly clarified their opinion by summarily dismissing a complaint challenging both the evidentiary and procedural adequacy of the disciplinary hearing of a pre-trial detainee.
On December 7, 1988, exactly three months after the district court ordered the dismissal of Harris’ petition, in Hasty v. Broglin, 531 N.E.2d 200, (Ind. 1988), the Indiana Supreme Court resolved the issue by definitively deciding that there was no constitutionally protected right to judicial review of individual decisions of the prison disciplinary system. Since the petitioner in Hasty alleged only that “the disciplinary procedures of the Westville Correctional Center violated his constitutional rights,” Id. (emphasis added), we are certain that Indiana courts now decline to review any individual decisions of the prison disciplinary system. Id. at 201. Since we are equally certain that a habeas corpus petition is the proper procedural vehicle to challenge a loss of good-time credits and a demotion in Time Earned Credits, Jackson v. Carlson, 707 F.2d 943, 946, (7th Cir.1983), we reverse the district court’s dismissal of the petition for failure to exhaust available state court remedies and remand the case for consideration on the merits. (Circuit Rule 36 shall not apply).
Reversed and Remanded.

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