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:
Dowell E. PATTERSON, Executor of the Estate of Harman H. Wynkoop, deceased, Appellant, v. Ernest WYNKOOP and Frances M. Wyn-koop, his wife, Appellees.
No. 7477.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
March 16, 1964.
Melvin D. Rueckhaus, of Rueckhaus & Brown, Albuquerque, N. M., for appellant.
James L. Dow, Carlsbad, N. M., for appellees.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.
MURRAH, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the New Mexico Court, dismissing a diversity action by appellant, a Colorado domiciliary executor, against the New Mexico ancillary administrator and his wife, in their individual capacities. The suit sought an accounting and judgment for money entrusted to them by the testator during his lifetime. The trial Court’s order of dismissal apparently rests upon the ground that the ancillary administrator was the real party in interest in a suit to enforce an accounting, even against himself; and, that in any event, the New Mexico Probate Court, with exclusive jurisdiction of the Harman H. Wynkoop estate in New Mexico, was the proper forum in which to bring the administrator to account for any money due the estate. We agree that the action was properly dismissed, as not being maintainable in the federal court.
New Mexico authorizes a foreign executor or administrator for sue or be sued in its courts in his representative capacity, “in like manner and under like restrictions as a nonresident * * 31-2-9, N.M.S.1953. And, where ancillary letters testamentary or of administration have been issued out of any New Mexico probate court, in accordance with applicable statutes, such executor or administrator may sue or be sued in any court in the State, in his representative capacity. See: 31-2-5, N.M.S.1953. But, the law of New Mexico also explicitly provides that the probate court shall have “exclusive original jurisdiction,” to hear and determine all controversies “respecting the duties, accounts and settlements of executors, administrators and guardians * * 16-4-10, N.M.S.1953. The statutes also provide that they shall be under bond (31-2-2, N.M.S.1953) with the duty to “make and file with the clerk of the probate court an inventory under oath of all real and personal property of the decedent which shall come to their knowledge or possession.” 31-3-2, N.M.S.1953. They are also required to render timely accounts, showing the condition of the estate, its debts and assets. See: 31-12-1, N.M.S.1953.
The trial Court found, and it is not disputed, that appellee, Ernest Wyn-koop, is the duly qualified and acting ancillary administrator of the Harman H. Wynkoop estate, under an order of the Probate Court of Bernalillo County, New Mexico. That court thereupon became vested with exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters respecting the duties of the ancillary administrator to account for assets of the estate within his knowledge or possession. The foreign domiciliary executor apparently attempts to avoid the exclusive jurisdiction of the New Mexico probate court, by directing his claim against the appellees, in their individual capacities. It may be conceded that in the absence of ancillary administration, or in the event of issuance of ancillary letters testamentary to the appellant, as foreign executor (i. e., see: 31-2-2, Ibid.), he could have brought a plenary action against the appellees for collection of the debt as an asset of the estate. Cf. Duehay v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co., 70 App.D.C. 245, 105 F.2d 768, 124 A.L.R. 1268. But, upon issuance of ancillary letters of administration to the appellee, Ernest Wynkoop, he was under statutory duty to fully account for all assets of the estate in his possession— whether in his representative or individual capacity. Being under a fiducial duty to account to the Probate Court for his personal indebtedness to the estate, he cannot be made to account in another forum. And, the appellant’s recourse is in the Probate Court, with the right of appeal to the State district court — not in this independent diversity suit, to sequester an asset of the estate. See: 16-4-10, supra; and McBeath v. Champion, 55 N.M. 114, 227 P.2d 625.
The judgment 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