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:
GRAYBURG OIL CO. v. BLYTH WITTER & CO.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 9, 1928.
No. 5146.
Estoppel <§=>92(2) — Corporation, having contracted for services of engineer t.o make report on oil lands, held estopped to deny liability, where report was unfavorable.
Defendant corporation, owner of oil lands, which contracted with complainant to float for it an issue of bonds, if the report of an engineer was favorable, and also agreed to pay the agreed charge of a particular engineer to be employed by complainant, and accepted his services as rendered without objection, helé estopped to deny liability therefor where the report proved unfavorable and the bond issue was abandoned.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas; Duval West, Judge. '
Suit in equity by Blyth Witter & Co. against the Grayburg Oil Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Victor Keller, of San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.
Dick O. Terrell and Robt. J. McMillan, both of San Antonio, Tex. (Terrell, Davis, Huff & McMillan, of San Antonio, Tex., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
In this case the petition substantially alleges:
That appellee had contracted with appellant to float a bond issue of $2,000,000 on appellant’s property, contingent on a favorable report of a competent oil engineer to be employed by it, and for whose services appellant was to pay; that E. De Golyer, an' oil engineer of national reputation, was employed pursuant to the exchange of the following telegrams:
“De Golyer estimates that report consume five to six days. Would be Worth five thousand to seventy-five hundred. He probably available first next week. At first glance this may appear high but considering De Golyeris international reputation, and further considering that this two million dollar deal I am not inclined to consider excessive. Further believe that De Golyer report on property may be of much future value to Grayburg Company. If this meets with your and Col. Diehl’s approval, please advise me by wire.”
“De Golyer terms acceptable. Haskin and Sells can start working end of this week and complete audit in two or three weeks.”
That De Golyer completed his report, for which appellee paid him $7,037.44; that it proved unfavorable, and appellee declined to float the bond issue for $2,000,000, but offered to do so for a lesser amount, which appellant in turn refused.
Appellant admitted the exchange of telegrams and its agreement to pay for an engineer’s services, but set up that De Golyer did not visit the property in person, did not correctly value some of it, and omitted some from his estimates of value.
Appellee filed a plea of estoppel to the defenses sought to- be interposed, and moved for the transfer of the cause to the equity side of the court. Without objection from appellant, the case was transferred, and proceeded in equity, with the result that the plea of estoppel was maintained, and judgment awarded appellee.
While the method of trial may have been somewhat irregular, it is evident that appellant consented to it until after judgment. It is not shown that there was any agreement or necessity that De Golyer should visit the property in order to make his report. He sent an assistant, who is not shown to have been incompetent, and there would seem to be no good reason why he could not base his conclusions on data compiled by his assistant. Furthermore, it must be remembered the agreement was to employ this particular engineer, and his compensation was fixed in advance. Appellant was aware of how he was going about his work, and made no timely objection. Bad faith on the part of either appellee or De Golyer is not shown, and it is clear that the only objection appellant has to paying the bill arises out of the unfavorable character of the report.
We find no reversible error in the record.
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: 1