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:
WEBB FUEL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 14874.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 26, 1962.
Richard F. Hooker and Stephen C. Bransdorfer, Grand Rapids, Mich., John W. Cummiskey, George E. Snyder, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief; Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey, Grand Rapids, Mich., of counsel, for petitioner.
Allison W. Brown, Jr., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Stuart Broad, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on brief, for respondent.
Before McALLISTER, Circuit Judge, and BOYD and FREEMAN, District Judges.
ORDER.
This is a petition to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board finding that the petitioner violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) by refusing to bargain with the Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Union, Local 364, as the exclusive representative of its office-clerical employees, at a time when petitioner knew that the union represented the then entire office work force, and also violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the act in refusing to reinstate four striking employees upon their unconditional offer to return to work after having engaged in a strike precipitated by petitioner’s unlawful refusal to bargain with the union.
29 U.S.C. § 160(f) in pertinent part, provides: “the findings of the Board with respect to questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole shall * * * be conclusive.”
Substantial evidence “is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 216, 83 L.Ed. 126, and “it must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury.” National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling and Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292, 300, 59 S.Ct. 501, 505, 83 L.Ed. 660.
In the instant case the majority of the board disagreed with the findings and conclusions of the trial examiner relied on for his recommendation that the complaint be dismissed. In this situation the Supreme Court in Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, at p. 496, 71 S.Ct. 456, 468, 95 L.Ed. 456, said: “The ‘substantial evidence’ standard is not modified in anyway when the Board and its examiner disagree.”
Applying the substantial evidence test and upon examination of the entire record, this Court concludes that there was substantial evidence to support the board’s findings and conclusions.
The petition to review and set aside the board’s order is denied and enforcement of the order is decreed.

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: 1