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:
Bernard GOLDFINE et al., Appellants, v. Fred G. PASTORE, Group Supervisor, Intelligence Division, Internal Revenue Service, Appellee.
No. 5439.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Dec. 8, 1958.
Burton L. Williams, Boston, Mass., James R. McGowan, Providence, R. I., and James W. Kelleher, Boston, Mass., on motion and memorandum of appellants.
. Anthony Julian, U. S. Atty., and Andrew A. Caffrey and George H. Lewald, Asst. U. S. Attys., Boston, Mass., on memorandum of appellee.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants have filed a notice of appeal from an “interim order” by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts directing them to turn over certain records to the Internal Revenue Service to assist the government in making an audit of the tax liabilities of certain corporations whose records are in the control of Bernard Goldfine or Mildred Paperman.
The proceeding before the district court was initiated by the filing on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service of a petition for enforcement of an internal revenue summons, pursuant to the provisions of §§ 7402(b) and 7604 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S. C.A. §§ 7402(b), 7604. See Brody v. United States, 1 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 378, certiorari denied, 1957, 354 U.S. 923, 77 S.Ct. 1384, 1 L.Ed.2d 1438.
The district court at the initial stages of the proceeding elected not to issue a turn-over direction in the breadth requested by the government. Instead it chose to exclude from its order the records relating to all tax years with respect to which there were any contentions made by the respondents that the taxing authorities had already completed an audit (the documents in question had been in their previous possession) whether or not the United States at this time admitted that such a prior audit had been made. The district court also chose to exclude from its enforcement order the records relating to any tax year with respect to which respondents had made the contention that the statute of limitations would apply (unless fraud, were found). In addition, it is to be noted that although the petition for enforcement of the internal revenue summons broadly requested an order for the turn-over of “stock certificate book” and other unspecified documents of each corporation, the district court elected to strike out these requests from the order which it entered.
The district court expressly reserved jurisdiction of the proceeding, stating that it proposed to issue “an interim order, for immediate compliance, and leave other aspects of the matter to await further testimony.”
As thus limited, the “interim order” of the court directed respondents to produce the records on or before today, Monday, December 8. The district court also denied an application for a stay of its order pending appeal. Respondents, having filed a notice of appeal from the aforesaid interim order, have filed an application to this court for an order staying the execution of the interim order.
Upon consideration of this application for a stay, together with the memorandum by appellants in support thereof, and upon consideration of the government’s memorandum in opposition to the application for a stay of the order, and the court of appeals being clearly of opinion that the interim order is a type of interlocutory order not appealable to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, and the district court having failed to file a certificate pursuant to the amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 by the Act of September 2, 1958 (72 Stat. 1770), to the effect that it is of the opinion that such interim order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation,”
An order will be entered denying appellants’ application for stay of the District Court’s order.

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: 2