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:
UNITED STATES ex rel. PIRINSKY v. SHAUGHNESSY.
No. 289, Docket 21452.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Sept. 16, 1949.
Decided Sept. 30, 1949.
Carol King, of New York City (Isidore Englander and Harry M. Justiz, both of New York City, on the brief), for relator-appellant.
Harold J. Raby, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City (John F. X. McGohey, U. S. Atty., of New York City, and Louis Stein-berg, Dist. Counsel, and Lester Friedman, Atty., New York Dist., Immigration and Naturalization Service, on the brief), for respondent-appellee.
Before SWAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges, and HINCKS, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The relator, an alien who entered this country in 1923, was taken into custody in deportation proceedings on September 23, 1948, and then released on $1,000 bail. On July 7, 1949, he was rearrested and all bail refused. He then sought this writ of habeas corpus. At the first hearing the district judge after taking testimony ruled that under U. S. ex rel. Potash v. District Director of Immigration and Naturalization at Port of New York, 2 Cir., 169 F.2d 747, and U. S. ex rel. Doyle v. District Director of Immigration and Naturalization at Port of New York, 2 Cir., 169 F.2d 753, the denial of bail was an abuse of administrative discretion and the writ “must be sustained unless the Attorney General promptly releases the relator on bail in a reasonable amount.” Thereafter the Attorney General set bail at $25,000, and the relator again sought release on the ground that the setting of such high bail was unreasonable. Another district judge, before whom the case then came, denied the application and discharged the writ, without opinion. This appeal followed.
It was brought out at the argument before us that the bail ultimately set was uniquely high in this type of proceeding. While that fact in itself should presumably not be controlling, since the issue in each case must be individual as to the amount reasonably designed to insure the alien’s necessary attendance upon the proceedings, yet the circumstances of this relator are not such as to suggest unusual doubt as to his continued availability here. He has worked in this country since 1923 and has been an official in Macedonian and Bulgarian organizations here. He is married to an American citizen and has an infant son. Respondent, claiming also that the first district judge was in error in interfering with the Attorney General’s denial of any bail, attempted to justify the bail set on the ground of the danger to public safety from his enlargement on bail. But the long administrative record, in evidence below, fails to show any immediate or particular danger to be expected from this individual, beyond other members of the Communist Party; and the administrative findings, filed since this proceeding was commenced, set forth no other ground than such party membership for his deportation. Unless, therefore, the Immigration Service intends to confine all alien Communists indefinitely during lengthy deportation proceedings, there is nothing in the record to justify the singling out of this individual for unusual treatment.
We believe the rule of law as a measure of some control of administrative discretion, established in the Potash and Doyle cases, requires a conclusion that the court below was in error in finding no abuse of administrative discretion in the matter and in not pursuing the course initiated by the first district judge, whose order was appropriate. The judgment is reversed and the proceedings remanded to the District Court with directions to proceed in accordance with the views herein expressed. Unless further facts then appear, bail in excess -of $5,000 would seem unreasonable. The mandate to the District Court will issue at once. In view of this action, no decision upon the motion for bail pending appeal is necessary at this time.
Reversed and remanded.

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