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:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. Fred H. JOHNSON, Trustee under the Will of Clay M. Thomas, Deceased, d/b/a Atlas Linen and Industrial Supply, Respondent.
No. 14868.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 5, 1962.
Standau E. Weinbreeht, Washington, D. C., Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Attorney National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on brief, for petitioner.
Jack G. Evans, Cincinnati, Ohio, Robert W. Newlon, Warren C. Armstrong, Columbus, Ohio, Thomas S. Calder, Dins-more, Shohl, Barrett, Coates & Deupree, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, for respondent.
Before CECIL, Chief Judge, and BOYD and PECK, District Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In this cause the National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order that the respondent employer, among other things, cease and desist from coercive, unfair labor practices found by the Board in this case to be in violation of Section 8(a) (3), National Labor Relations Act, and that one certain employee, Myrtle C. Hall, be reinstated by the employer to the substantial equivalent of her former position without prejudice to her employment rights and with payment of her lost earnings, the Board having found that because of activity on behalf of the Union herein she was dis-criminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the aforesaid Act (Title 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1) and (3)). The order herein was issued upon adoption by the Board of the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, the Board finding “no prejudicial error” in the Examiner’s Intermediate Report.
The employer urges herein that there was no substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings regarding the above violations, hence enforcement of the order should be denied. The employer assigns as error and relies chiefly on the fact that the Trial Examiner on his own motion took official notice of the facts concerning other alleged unfair practices in another proceeding against this employer, which was not final, but then pending before the Board. After taking such notice the Trial Examiner used what he found in the Record of the other proceeding as part of his stated reason for crediting the discharged employee Hall’s testimony in the hearing. This, claims the employer, fatally detracts from the substantiality of the evidence before the Board.
The discharged employee was the only witness for the Board on both of the alleged violations herein. The employer produced as witnesses three of its supervisory personnel whose testimony, in substance, amounted to a denial of the facts charged as coercive and, further, that the employee Hall’s discharge resulted from poor workmanship in the performance of her duties.
The employer objected to the Trial Examiner’s consideration of the facts of the other proceeding aforesaid and brought this to the Board’s attention by way of exceptions to the Examiner’s Intermediate Report. The Board considered the objection but held there was no prejudicial error in the report and that independent of the official notice taken by the Examiner the reliable evidence adduced on the hearing preponderated against the employer.
An administrative agency must confine itself to the record before it and afford opportunity for showings contrary to material facts of which official notice has been taken. Administrative Procedure Act, Title 5 U.S.C. § 1006(d). However, to constitute fatal error it must appear that an administrative agency’s journey outside the record worked substantial prejudice. United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, 327 U.S. 515, 66 S.Ct. 687, 90 L.Ed. 821. Official notice herein of matter outside the record was the Examiner’s and not the Board’s, thus differing from the situation as it existed before this court in National Labor Relations Board v. Bill Daniels, Inc., 202 F.2cl 579 (C.A.6, 1953), reversed on other grounds, 346 U.S. 918, 74 S.Ct. 305, 98 L.Ed. 413. The Board is not bound by the Examiner’s findings. It may disagree with them. Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456. It is difficult to see how the Examiner’s action in this regard is chargeable to the Board since in its order the Board based its conclusions on evidence independent of the Examiner’s official notice of the other proceeding. It so stated. 132 N. L. R. B. No. 105. An example of the Board’s adoption of the Examiner’s official notice of matter outside the record is found in Paramount Cap Manufacturing Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 260 F.2d 109 (C.A. 8, 1958). Moreover, the Examiner also gave as a reason for crediting the testimony of the employee herein his impression on the hearing that she was a truthful and credible witness.
We do not find in the Examiner’s action the requisite prejudice for denying enforcement of the Board’s order. There was substantial evidence independent of this action when the record is viewed as a whole to support the Board’s findings on the violations charged. Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, supra; National Labor Relations Board v. Walton Manufacturing Company, 369 U.S. 404, 82 S.Ct. 853, 7 L.Ed. 2d 809.
Enforcement of the Board’s order is hereby granted.

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