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:
FELTON v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
November 9, 1925.)
No. 4447.
1. Criminal law <§=>l 115(1) — Sufficiency of affl. davit or search warrant not reviewabie, where copy of neither is in record.
Where record does not contain copy of either affidavit or search warrant, sufficiency thereof is not reviewabie.
2. Criminal law <§=>901— Error in denying directed verdict at close of government’s evidence waived by defendant’s ' offer of evidence thereafter.
’Error, if any, in overruling defendant’s motion for directed verdict at close of government’s evidence, is waived by defendant’s offer of. evidence thereafter.
3. intoxicating liquors <§=>236(61/2, 19) — Evidence held to sustain conviction for unlawful manufacture and possession, and for possession of property designed for manufacture.
Evidence held to sustain conviction for unlawful manufacture and possession of intoxicating liquor, and for possession of property designed for unlawful manufacture.
4. Criminal law <§=>-1169(7) — Errors, if any,' growing out of alleged invalidity of search warrant, held harmless, in view of testimony of one defendant.
In prosecution for unlawful manufacture and possession of liquor and -unlawful possession of property designed for manufacture, where one defendant, placed on stand by his codefendant, testified that there was a still on his codefendant’s premises, but that he (witness) had nothing to do with it, held, errors, if ány, growing out of invalidity of search warrant, were not prejudicial.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky; Charles I. Dawson, Judge.
H. B. Felton was convicted of unlawful manufacture and possession of intoxicating liquor and of possessing property designed for unlawful manufacture, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
J. L. Richardson, of Louisville, Ky. (W. G-. Dearing, of Louisville, Ky., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
W. S. Ball, U. S. Atty., of Louisville, Ky. (Lilburn Phelps and Claude Hudgins, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Louisville, Ky., on the brief), for the United States.
Before DONAHUE and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District Judge.
DONAHUE, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff in error was convicted on all three counts of an information. The first count charged the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, the second count with having in his possession property designed for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and the third count the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months in the Jefferson eounty jail.
It is claimed on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the search warrant was invalid, for the reason that the affidavit did not state that intoxicating liquor was being sold on the premises searched. Staker v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 5 F.(2d) 312. The record in this case does not contain a copy either of affidavit or the search warrant. For this reason we do not think the sufficiency of the affidavit or the validity of the search warrant is presented by this record. Even if it were presented, the plaintiff in error did not rely upon his motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by the government, but, on the contrary, offered as a witness Theodore Simmones, who was jointly charged with him in each count of the information.
Simmones testified that he was employed by Felton to collect city garbage and feed over 40 hogs, and that in addition to this he worked on the truck farm of about 12 acres; that he had no connection whatever with the still, but that there was a still on Felton’s premises; that he saw Felton come in with the truck loaded with sugar and meal, four or five sacks, of about 100 pounds each. This testimony of Simmones, if believed by the jury, was in and of itself sufficient to prove the guilt of Felton beyond a reasonable doubt. This witness being called on behalf of both defendants, and without any claim on the part of counsel for Felton that they were taken by surprise by this witness’ testimony, and without offering any other proof tending to establish a different state of facts, there is no apparent reason why the jury should not have accepted this evidence, at least in so far as it tended to prove the guiit of Felton. It appears from the verdict, however, that the jury did accept as true all of the testimony of this witness, and returned a verdict of not guilty as to Simmones and guilty as to Felton.
For this reason, the errors complained of, oven if they were exhibited by the record, would not be prejudicial.
Judgment 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