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:
STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO. et al. v. AMBROSE.
No. 10238.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 2, 1942.
Frank J. Scurlock, of Dallas, Tex., for appellants.
J. N. Saye and W. T. Saye, both of Longview, Tex., for appellee.
Before HOLMES and McCORD, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.
McCORD, Circuit Judge.
On February 23, 1940, over the protest and objection of Stanolind Oil and Gas Company, the Railroad Commission of Texas granted to W. D. Ambrose a permit to drill eight additional oij wells on his lease in the East Texas Oil Field. Thereupon Stanolind brought suit against Am-brose and the Commission, and sought to cancel the permit and enjoin the drilling of the additional wells. At Stanolind’s request, and upon the filing of a $10,000 bond in court, a preliminary injunction was issued on March 16, 1940, and Ambrose was notified that he had been temporarily enjoined and restrained from drilling or producing from any of the eight wells allowed by the permit. After trial of the action on the merits, the court found for Ambrose, and on June 19, 1940, final decree was entered and the preliminary injunction was dissolved. On appeal the judgment of the District Court was affirmed by this Court. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Ambrose, 5 Cir., 118 F.2d 847.
It is without dispute that for more than ninety days Ambrose was prevented by the injunction from drilling wells on his lease. He, therefore, brought this action against Stanolind and its bondsman to recover damages alleged to have been suffered because of this delay.
On the trial the court permitted the evidence to take a wide range: The life of the wells, the number of barrels of oil to be captured each day under the rules of the Railroad Commission, and the cost of drilling and bringing in the wells. The life of the wells was fixed by experts at from twenty to twenty-two years, and the cost of drilling was established. The court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and, after going into nearly every phase of the evidence which threw light on the issues, he found the number of days of production lost on account of the injunction, the number of barrels of oil lost by Ambrose as the result of such delay, and the market value of such oil in the stock tanks on the lease after deducting certain production costs in the way of production and pipe line taxes, royalty, etc. It was found that Ambrose had sustained a net loss of $5,357.43, and judgment for this amount was entered against Stanolind and its surety.
Having been wrongfully enjoined, Ambrose was entitled to recover just and adequate compensation for the loss which was the natural and proximate result of the injunction. Galveston City R. Co. v. Miller, Tex.Civ.App., 38 S.W. 1132.
While much of the evidence in the record is in dispute, there was substantial evidence to support the findings, conclusions, and judgment.
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: 2