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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent 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 of America ex rel. Robert RICE, Relator, v. Leon J. VINCENT, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, Stormville, New York, Respondent.
Docket No. 73-2195-6.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Aug. 14, 1973.
Decided Sept. 5, 1973.
Robert A. Goldschlag, Asst. Dist. Atty. for New York County, New York City (Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. for New York County, New York City, on the brief), for respondent.
Lewis M. Steel, New York City, for relator.
Before MULLIGAN, OAKES and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The District Attorney for New York County on behalf of respondent has moved for a stay of an order entered August 3, 1973 in the Southern District of New York, Harold R. Tyler, Jr., District Judge, releasing relator, a state prisoner, on $10,000 bail pending respondent’s appeal to our Court from an order entered by Judge Tyler on July 17, 1973, 361 F.Supp. 843, granting relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless relator is retried by the State of New York within 60 days.
Following reversal by the New York Court of Appeals, People v. Baker, 23 N.Y.2d 307, 244 N.E.2d 232, 296 N.Y.S.2d 745 (1968), of an earlier conviction of relator of murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, relator was retried and convicted of the same offenses on April 9, 1970 in the Supreme Court, New York County. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The latter conviction was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division on May 23, 1972. People v. Rice, 39 A.D.2d 840, 332 N.Y.S.2d 1010 (1st Dept. 1972). Relator’s appeal to the New York Court of Appeals from his second conviction is now pending.
Judge Tyler ordered relator released on bail pending respondent’s appeal to this Court on the ground that relator’s “backers and friends” will assert sufficient influence or control over him to prevent him from fleeing. We disagree. He was living with his mother and grandmother at the time of the two murders with which he is charged. He faces a life sentence if his 1970 conviction is affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals. We agree with respondent that relator should not be released on bail pending respondent’s appeal to this Court from the district court’s order granting relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1970). In other § 2254 cases where the district court has granted the writ, this Court has carefully refrained from granting bail, e. g., United States ex rel. Miller and Quinones v. LaVallee (Docket No. MR 4212, decided September 21, 1970); United States ex rel. Vincent Cerullo v. Follette (Docket No. 33381, decided March 3, 1969); United States ex rel. Joseph v. LaVallee (Docket No. 32950, decided December 17, 1968).
Accordingly, we grant respondent’s motion to stay the district court’s order of August 3, 1973 releasing relator on bail. Our stay will remain in effect until the decision of our Court on respondent’s appeal from the district court’s order of July 17, 1973. We also order that respondent’s appeal in this Court be expedited as follows: respondent’s brief and appendix shall be filed on or before September 20, 1973; relator’s brief and appendix shall be filed on or before October 10, 1973; and the appeal shall be heard during the week of October 15, 1973.
Motion for stay granted; appeal expedited.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0