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:
In re MILLER & HARBAUGH. HARBAUGH v. CLARK.
No. 6433.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 23, 1932.
Barnett H. Goldstein, H. E. Collier, and S. J. Bischoff, all of Portland, Or., for appellant.
Coan & Rosenberg, of Portland, Or., for appellee.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges and WEBSTER, District Judge.
Rehearing denied April 4, 1932.
PER CURIAM.
January 6, 1931, the order adjudging Paul C. Harbaugh in contempt of court was made and entered in the District Court of the United States for' the District of Oregon, for disobeying a turnover order made and entered in In re bankruptcy of Miller & Harbaugh, a corporation.
January 28, 1931, petition for allowance of appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was filed in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon.
January 28, 1931, assignment of errors was filed.
January 28, 1931, an order was made and entered allowing an appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
January 28, 1931, citation on appeal was issued and served on the appellee, and due and timely and legal service was admitted the same day.
April 7, 1931, the transcript in this cause was filed with the 'clerk of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the cause was duly docketed.
April 13, 1931, appellee entered his appearance in this court.
April 14, 1931, appellant’s brief was filed.
September 11, 1931, appellee’s brief was filed herein.
September 17, 1931, appellant’s reply brief was filed herein.
September 17, 1931, this cause was tried at the Portland, Or., session of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
September 21, 1931, appellee filed an additional brief.
October 26, 1931, a judgment was entered herein, 53 F.(2d) 176, reversing the order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Thereafter appellee filed a petition and brief for a rehearing.
December 14, 1931, an order was entered herein denying the petition for a rehearing, 54 F.(2d) 612.
December 14, 1931, “upon application of Messrs. Coan & Rosenberg, counsel for the appellee,” an order Staying issuance of mandate was made and entered herein pending petition for a writ of certiorari to be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States.
January 2, 1932, the clerk of this court forwarded (as of December 28, 1931), to the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States the original and copies of the transcript of record for use upon petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for writ of certiorari.
January 4, 1932, appellee served the motion now before the Court, and likewise served a motion to stay the issuance of mandate to March 10, 1932, and also prays that this court fix a time within which the petition for a writ of certiorari be docketed in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States.
No motion was ever filed to dismiss the appeal prior to the entry of the judgment in this court.
The question presented by this motion was not argued in the briefs filed herein, nor was the question presented at the oral argument of the ease.
The question was not presented upon the petition for rehearing.
The court did not, prior to the rendition of this judgment, pass upon the matter sua sponte.
Both parties have filed briefs, on the jurisdictional questions involved, and a further hearing of the motion is neither necessary nor desirable. It is clear that, if this appeal is from an order in a proceeding in bankruptcy, this court acquired no jurisdiction over the matter by the allowance of an appeal by the District Court. This was decided by this court in Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. Momsen-Dunnegan-Ryan Co., 51 F.(2d) 684, in conformity with the decisions of other Circuit Courts of Appeal. Quarles v. Dennison (C. C. A. 10) 45 F.(2d) 585; Broders v. Lage (C. C. A. 8) 25 F.(2d) 288, 289; Taylor v. Voss, 271 U. S. 176, 181, 46 S. Ct. 461, 70 L. Ed. 889; Gate City Clay Co. v. Dickey (C. C. A. 8) 39 F.(2d) 581, and numerous eases cited; Shoreland Co. v. Conklin, 30 F.(2d) 489 (C. C. A. 5); Stanley’s Incorporated Store No. 3 v. Earl (C. C. A. 8) 25 F.(2d) 458; Schnurr v. Miller, 49 F.(2d) 109 (C. C. A. 8).
That the order adjudicating the appellant in contempt for a failure to obey a turnover order is a proceeding in bankruptcy was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the first circuit in Ahlstrom v. Ferguson, 29 F.(2d) 515. We see no reason to doubt the .correctness of this conclusion, and consequently the appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.

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