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:
FOUR BROTHERS CORPORATION et al., Defendants, Appellants, v. Rosa Maria CORDERO, Plaintiff, Appellee.
No. 5649.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 1960.
Decided April 26, 1960.
Rafael Pastor, Santurce, P. R., and M. Acosta Velarde, San Juan, P. R., on brief for appellants in opposition to motion to dismiss or affirm.
A. Mieres Calimano, Rio Piedras, P. R., and A. Torres Braschi, San Juan, P. R., on brief for appellee in support of motion to dismiss or affirm.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1293 from a decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico summarily dismissing an appeal from a judgment entered by the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan Part, for the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident which the plaintiff-appellee has moved to dismiss under Rule 39 of this court. The value of the amount in controversy is substantially less than $5,000 and it is abundantly clear that the federal constitutional question seasonably raised below is wholly without any substance whatever and is utterly frivolous. See Romero v. People of Puerto Rico, 1 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 864, 867, and cases cited, and see also Figueroa v. People of Puerto Rico, 1 Cir., 1956, 232 F.2d 615, 617, 618. The trial court issued a pretrial order and notified the parties thereof requiring them to serve each other fifteen days before the date set for trial with a list containing the documentary and oral evidence they would submit at the hearing and warned them “that in default thereof, they will be unable to introduce said evidence.” The plaintiff-appellee complied with the order; the defendant-appellant, it says by inadvertence, did not. No argument is necessary to show that the defendant-appellant was not deprived of his day in court by the trial court’s insistence that its pretrial order be obeyed. At the most all that is presented is a question of local law.
An order will be entered dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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: 99