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:
DEENA PRODUCTS CO. v. UNITED BRICK & CLAY WORKERS OF AMERICA et al.
No. 11404.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 1952.
Wheeler & Marshall, Paducah, Ky., for appellant.
Joseph S. Freeland, Paducah, Ky., Woll, Glenn & Thatcher, Washington, D. C., John Y. Brown, Lexington, Ky., and Nathan Duff, Perth Amboy, N. J., for appellees.
Before SIMONS, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This cause came on to be heard upon the record and upon the briefs and oral arguments of attorneys for appellant and ap-pellees, respectively, and upon the motion of appellees to dismiss the appeal;
From all of which it appears that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, for the reason that the appellant company failed to file a notice of appeal in the United States District Court within the time prescribed by law and by the Rules of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as more than thirty days had elapsed after the motion of appellant for a new trial had been overruled by the District Court before the appellant’s motion for a new trial was reinstated and again overruled, the District Judge having stated that his purpose in setting aside the original order overruling the motion for a new trial was to enable the plaintiff to prosecute an appeal;
And it being the view of this court that, -both under Civil Procedure Rule 73 (a), 28 U.S.C.A., and section 2107 of Title 28 U.S.C., as amended by Act of Congress of May 24, 1949, the filing of a notice of appeal within the prescribed time is mandatory and jurisdictional and cannot be extended by waiver or order of court, and the right to appeal is lost if notice of appeal is not filed within the time prescribed. (See Marten v. Hess, 6 Cir., 176 F.2d 834);
And it being the further view of the court that any damages suffered by the appellant, by reason of the acts complained of, are, regardless of the liability or non-liability of the appellees to it under the provisions of the statute, section 303(a) (1) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, section 187(a) (1), Title 29, U.S.C.A., contingent and entirely dependent upon certain contractual relations with its subsidiary, Deena Artware, Inc., which contractual relations did not exist, and accordingly are not recoverable in this action ;
The motion of appellees to dismiss the appeal filed October 15, 1951, is granted; and the appeal is ordered to be dismissed.

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