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:
MAGHAN v. YOUNG et al.
No. 9146.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.
Decided Feb. 18, 1946.
Mr. James J. Laughlin, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Chester H. Gray, Principal Assistant Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Vernon E. West, Corporation Counsel, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees.
Before GRONER, C. J., and EDGER-TON and PRETTYMAN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to file the record within the time allowed under the rules.
The record shows that the order of the District Court appealed from was entered June 5, 1945. Notice of appeal was filed August 31, 1945. On October 8th (within the forty-day period after the filing of notice of appeal) the time for filing the record in this Court was extended by the District Court to November 5th. On November 1st (within the time limit as extended) the time was again extended by the District Court to November 24th. On November 27th — the record not then having been filed — appellees filed in this Court under Rule 75(j) a preliminary record and moved to dismiss, notice of which was duly served on appellant’s attorney of record. On November 29th appellant filed objections to the motion to dismiss, admitting the default, hut asking us to overlook it for “excusable neglect.” The explanation of appellant’s neglect is that appellant’s counsel was professionally engaged in attending to other matters. We think this is not an adequate reason to justify our exercise of discretion.
Shortly after the adoption of the new Rules we did grant relief in a somewhat similar case, on the ground that the Rules were new and that it was unlikely counsel had sufficiently acquainted themselves with their terms, but we were careful on that occasion to advise the Bar that we intended thereafter to exercise sparingly our discretion to save an appeal prosecuted in disregard of the Rules. In accordance with that ruling we have since, we think, invariably declined to extend relief, except for convincing reasons, where, as is the case here, appellee after appellant’s default has himself filed a preliminary record and moved to dismiss.
The reasons advanced in the present case show neglect, but fail to show excusable neglect. Accordingly we are granting appellees’ motion, and an order will be entered dismissing the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Rule 73(g), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.
Burke v. Canfield, 72 App.D.C. 127, 111 F.2d 526.
Rule 6(b), Rules of Civil Procedure. “When by these rules * * * an act is required * * * to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may, at any timo in its discretion * * * (2) upon motion permit the act to be done after the expiration of the specified period where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect *

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: 99