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:
HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, et al., Respondents, Appellants, v. Ana DEL VALLE et al., Petitioners, Appellees.
No. 6133.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
March 6, 1964.
Jonas B. Katz, Cincinnati, Ohio, with whom Brown & Gettler, Cincinnati, Ohio, was on brief, for appellants.
Ginoris Vizcarra, San Juan, P. R., with whom Sarah Torres Peralta, Federico Rodriguez Pagan and Torres Peralta & Vizcarra, San Juan, P. R., were on brief, for appellees.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and MARIS and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
Sitting by designation.
ALDRICH, Circuit Judge.
The Puerto Rico local of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, found itself in the trusteeship of its International Union. The eighteen months presumptive period, section 304 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 464(c), having expired, certain members of the local brought a petition in the district court against both unions praying for dissolution of the trusteeship. Petitioners requested substantial interim relief, including the appointment of a monitor and the ordering of an election, under his supervision, of new directors of the local. Following a hearing on an order to show cause the district court denied all other interim relief, but appointed a monitor with authority to conduct “the election of the officers and the Board of Directors of the union who are to take over its affairs upon the termination of the present trusteeship * * The monitor was further to “supervise * * * the complete cessation of the trusteeship immediately upon the election and installation of the said officers and Board of Directors.”
Respondents did not object to the order insofar as it involved the cessation of the trusteeship (in fact they so stipulated), but they did complain of and now appeal from, the court’s assumption of authority to appoint a monitor and thus supervise the election.
Appellees raise, at the outset, the question of our jurisdiction. Appellants state that jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1), asserting that the court’s order in effect constituted the granting of an injunction. Their position is that implicit in the order appointing a monitor to supervise “the” election was an implied directive that there be no election not so supervised.
While we believe that implied injunctions are not readily to be found it is nevertheless difficult not to envisage appellants’ interpretation of the district court’s order as the practical one, or to think that any responsible union would have believed itself free to adopt a contrary course. Therefore, while we caution counsel in other cases not to take this one broadly, we do think that in “substantial effect” (Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 1942, 317 U.S. 188, 192, 63 S.Ct. 163, 87 L.Ed. 176) there was an injunction here.
Turning to the merits, appellees assert that the district court has equitable powers, and that such include the appointment of a monitor. While monitorships may be an acceptable equitable device, see Monitors: A New Equitable Remedy? 70 Yale L.J. 103 (1960), the record discloses no special reasons for invoking that relief here. Indeed, none are even alleged. The court seems to have proceeded on the basis that the burden was upon respondents to show the contrary. We cannot infer from a statute containing no such affirmative provisions that the appointment of a monitor to supervise an election in connection with the dissolution of a trusteeship is automatic. The fact that petitioners had statutory authorization to bring a suit for termination of the trusteeship (we are persuaded by Judge Watkins’ excellent analysis in Executive Board, Local Union No. 28, I. B. E. W. v. I. B. E. W., D.C.Md.1960, 184 F.Supp. 649) does not go to the merits of the relief.
Judgment will be entered vacating that portion of the court’s order appointing a monitor and directing an election. Final judgment to be entered in accordance with this opinion.
. “The rights and remedies provided by this subehapter shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies at law or in equity.” 29 U.S.C. § 466.
. The statutory scheme would appear to be the reverse. Of. 29 U.S.C. §§ 482, 483.

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