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:
WONG HEUNG ex rel. WONG YUT DIN v. JOHNSON, U. S. Com’r of Immigration.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
October 18, 1927.
No. 2135.
1. Aliens <§=>32(9) — Hearing on application for admission of alleged foreign-born son of native-born Chinese citizen held fair.
Hearing before immigration tribunals on application of alleged foreign-born Chinese citizen for admission to United States held fair, where discrepancies in testimony were brought to the attention of the applicant and his father on the first hearing and were not kept secret and then used as the main ground for the adverse decision.
2. Aliens <§=>32(8)— Determination of immigration tribunals that applicant did not make out claim of being son of citizen held warranted by evidence.
Determination of immigration tribunals that applicant for admission to United States did not make out his claim of being foreign-born son of native-born Chinese citizen held warranted by the evidence.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; James Arnold Lowell, Judge.
Habeas corpus by Wong Heung, on the relation of Wong Yut Din, against John P. Johnson, Commissioner of Immigration. Decree for respondent, and petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Joseph F. O’Connell, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.
John W. Schenck, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass (Frederick H. Tarr, U. S. Atty., of Gloucester, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.
This habeas corpus case, presents the familiar question whether the applicant is the son of a native-born Chinese citizen. Wong Yut Din is a boy, now 14 years of age, who arrived at Boston May 3,1925, and sought admission as the son of Wong Heung, 45 years old. The Board of Special Inquiry excluded him, June 19, 1923; and on appeal the Board of Review affirmed this decision.- The gist of the case is shown in the following excerpt from the decision of the Board of Review:
“Applicant claims to be the son of one Wong Heung. This man’s United States nativity has been established and conceded on many occasions. The alleged father, as well as a prior landed alleged brother, one Wong Yet Kwai, appear as witnesses. The alleged father departed on one trip to China in 1911 and returned on November 2, 1912. As it is claimed that applicant was born January 18, 1913, it will be seen that the alleged father was in China at a time to physically permit of his paternity to a person of applicant’s claimed age. The first mention of the applicant was made in 1916, at which time the. alleged father succeeded in bringing in two sons, one Wong Yut Foo and one Wong Yut Nan. In 1916 both these two alleged brothers, as well as the alleged father, properly named this applicant, giving his correct age. In 1919 the alleged father succeeded in bringing in another alleged son, Wong Yut Kwai,, who appeared as a witness in this ease.' At that time the applicant was again mentioned.
“The alleged father has one brother, one Wong Yut, or Yick. In 1917 this brother, who is an uncle of the applicant, succeeded in securing the admission of two of his sons, one Wong Bing Ken and one Wong Bing Jong. A peculiar situation arose at that time, in that the father of those applicants as well as the applicants themselves positively testified that their uncle and brother, respectively, had but three sons, the names and ages, given at that time corresponding to those of the three alleged sons who were admitted. In' 1917 the alleged father of this applicant appeared as a witness in behalf of his al-. leged nephews and insisted that he had four' sons, thus contradicting his nephews. The alleged nephews seemed quite positive in their, testimony, even giving the name and age of this alleged father’s youngest son, which corresponded to those of his present claimed third son.
“This conflicting testimony is made quite material by the fact that all the records in the ease of these various alleged relatives show that they came from the same little vil-1 lage which consists of but twenty houses, and that the homes of these two alleged brothers, the fathers of the two sets of cousins, are located practically side by side.”
Other minor discrepancies are referred to, but not apparently given controlling weight. After appeal to the Secretary of Labor, the case was reopened to receive the evidence of Wong Yut Nan, twenty-three years old, an alleged brother of the applicant. On reconsideration, the former decision was affirmed, April 6,1926, on essentially the same grounds, of which the chief was the evidence given in 1917 by the alleged uncle and two alleged cousins, to the effect" that applicant’s father had no such son as the applicant. This contradictory evidence was brought to the attention of the applicant and his father at the first hearing in June, 1925, before the. Board of Special Inquiry. It was not kept secret and then used as the main ground for the adverse decision. Cf. Lewis v. Johnson (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 180. There was nothing unfair in the procedure. The immigration tribunals gave every reasonable opportunity to the applicant to offer evidence to convince them of his relationship to his alleged father.
While the evidence from the alleged father and his sons previously admitted is highly persuasive, we cannot, on such a record, say that the immigration authorities had no evidence to warrant their conclusion that the relationship was not made out. The case therefore falls under the well-settled rules. The court below was right that on habeas corpus there was no jurisdiction; the decision below must be affirmed. Johnson v. Damon (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 65, and cases cited.
The decree of the District Court is affirmed.

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