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:
STRACHAN SHIPPING COMPANY and Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, Appellants, v. R. J. SHEA, Deputy Commissioner, et al., Appellees.
No. 25880.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 13, 1969.
Ed. Bluestein, Jr., D. Dudley Oldham, Houston, Tex., for appellants; Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Houston, Tex., of counsel.
W. Jiles Roberts, James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Morton L. Susman, U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., Morton Hollander, Ralph A. Fine, John C. Eldridge, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before JONES and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and CHOATE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
In January, 1964, Lester Nehring, an employee of Strachan Shipping Company, was allegedly injured while working on board the SS RIO BERMEJO. He instituted a third party suit against the owner of the vessel to recover for the injuries he sustained. The owner in turn impleaded Nehring’s employer, Strachan Shipping Company, for indemnity. The jury found that Nehring did not sustain an injury while working on board the vessel and denied recovery.
Thereafter, Nehring filed a claim before the Deputy Commissioner, pursuant to the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901, et seq. The Deputy Commissioner held a formal hearing and, determining that Nehring did in fact suffer personal injuries while working on board the SS RIO BERMEJO, awarded compensation.
Strachan brought action to set aside the award. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Deputy Commissioner and affirmed the award.
The question is: Did the jury finding that Nehring was not injured while on board the vessel collaterally estop the Deputy Commissioner from deciding to the contrary?
The issue is identical to that presented in Young & Co. v. Shea, 5 Cir., 1968, 397 F.2d 185, in which we held that the Deputy Commissioner was not estopped. That precedent is controlling here.
See also Watson v. Gulf Stevedore Corp., 5 Cir., 1968, 400 F.2d 649, and Goins v. Noble Drilling Corp., 5 Cir., 1968, 397 F.2d 392; petition for rehearing in Young and in Watson denied December 9, 1968, 404 F.2d 1059.
We again point out that the proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner is quite distinct from the ordinary civil suit before a jury. Unlike a judge in a civil suit, the Deputy Commissioner is not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence or formal rules of procedure. 33 U.S.C. § 923. In addition, certain presumptions, not elsewhere indulged, are recognized in a hearing brought in accordance with the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. 33 U.S.C. § 920.
Finally, and most significantly, the burden of proof for the petitioner in a compensation hearing is less stringent than in a civil suit. Whereas, in a civil suit the petitioner must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence in a hearing before the Commissioner all doubtful questions of fact are to be resolved in favor of the injured employee. See J. V. Vozzolo, Inc. v. Britton, 1967, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 377 F.2d 144, 147; Friend v. Britton, 1955, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 139, 220 F.2d 820. The legislative history of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C., § 500 et seq., cited by the appellant, is not deemed to be to the contrary.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable to the situation here presented. The judgment of the District Court 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