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:
WEBER v. UNITED STATES.
No. 8987.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 1, 1939.
For prior opinion, see 103 F.2d 301.
A. M. Mood, of Fort Worth, Tex., and J. Forrest McCutcheon, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Clyde O. Eastus, U. S. Atty., of Fort Worth, Tex., and Joe H. Jones, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Dallas, Tex., for the United States.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
By a motion for rehearing the appellant contends that his appeal was returnable to the November term, 1939, of this court, to be held at Fort Worth, Texas, and that no order was made transferring it to New Orleans and that under Rule X of those promulgated by the Supreme Court May 7, 1934, touching procedure in criminal cases, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723a, the appeal could not be set for trial until 30 days after the record was filed in the appellate court and the record was not filed until April 13, 1939; so that the setting at New Orleans for April 11th was improper and the dismissal for want of prosecution on April 18th was erroneous.
Judicial Code, § 126, 28 U.S.C.A. § 223, provides that a term of the Court be held at Fort Worth on the first Monday in November and “All appeals, writs of error, and other appellate proceedings .which may be taken or prosecuted from the district courts of the United States * * * in the State of Texas * * * shall be heard and disposed of * * * at the terms held in * * * Fort Worth * * * except that appeals or writs of error in cases of injunctions and in all other cases which, under the statutes and rules, or in the opinion of the court, are entitled to be brought to a speedy hearing may be heard and disposed of wherever said court may be sitting.”
At least since the promulgation of the above referred to rules of procedure in criminal cases appeals therein have been such as “under the statutes and rules * * * are entitled to be brought to a speedy hearing.” Rule X is emphatic to that effect and expressly commands a prompt hearing and that preference shall be given to criminal appeals over appeals in civil cases. Appeals in criminal cases are thus properly to be heard wherever the Court is sitting, without special order, and on no other notice than is customarily given of the setting of cases for argument. It appears from our records, of which we take notice, that Messrs. Mood and Mc-Cutcheon, attorneys who had been admitted to practice in this court, filed their appearance as counsel for appellant on December 12, 1938. At least 40 days notice of the fixing of the case for trial was sent to them. No objection was ever made by appellant or his counsel to the time or place of trial.
It is true that Rule X states: “Save where good cause is shown for an earlier hearing, the appellate court shall set the appeal for argument on a date not less than thirty (30) days after the filing in that court of the record on appeal and as soon after the expiration of that period as the state of the calendar of the appellate court will permit.” This provision applies where the record is timely filed. Where as in this case there is no apparent effort to prepare the record and it is not in fact timely filed the Court may apply the provisions of Rule IV, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723a, “The appellate court may at any time, upon five (5) days’ notice, entertain a motion to dismiss the appeal.” The appellant can not postpone the disposition of the appeal by delaying beyond the time allowed the preparation and filing of his record. The Court may set the matter on its docket for hearing and where there is no appearance and no motion for continuance or other relief, may dismiss the appeal. When the case was called on April 11th, in its order on our docket and there was no record filed, the time having expired April 5th, and no application for any relief about it, no brief and no counsel present, the appeal might have been forthwith dismissed for want of prosecution under our Rule 22. We withheld judgment on the motion for dismissal until April 18th directing that notice be given of it to appellant, and there still being no appearance on brief for appellant and no motion in his behalf, although the Clerk had transmitted a meagre record, we dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
The motion to set aside the dismissal does not disclose a meritorious case but is based on the technical grounds above stated. We think the dismissal was not erroneous and the motion to set it aside is denied.

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