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:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. JACKSON FARMERS, INC. (Formerly Farmers Union Co-Operative Business Association), Respondent.
No. 43-70.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 30, 1970.
Janet Skaare Morris (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Atty., N.L.R.B.), for petitioner.
William G. Haynes, of Eidson, Lewis, Porter & Haynes, Topeka, Kan., for respondent.
Before JONES BREITENSTEIN, and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges.
Of the Fifth Circuit,, sitting by designation.
BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.
In this proceeding to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board, the respondent, Jackson Farmers, Inc., refused to bargain in order to test the validity of the certification of collective bargaining units. The Board found that the Company had violated § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (5) and (1). See 178 NLRB No. 56.
In various Kansas small towns the Company operates grain elevators, gasoline service stations, and a feed mill. The American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for representation elections in two separate units of the Company’s employees. These were (1) a unit of production and maintenance employees including truck drivers and service station workers, and (2) a unit of office clerical workers. After a hearing the Regional Director issued a decision and directed an election in each unit. The Company’s petition for review of the Director’s action was summarily denied by the Board. The production and maintenance employees voted in favor of the Union. The outcome of the election held for the clerical employees depended on one challenged ballot, that of Imogene Kinast, the wife of a supervisor. The Director sustained the challenge with the result that this election also went for the Union. The Board summarily rejected the Company’s petition for review of the Director’s decision on the challenged ballot.
The Company refused to recognize the Union and to bargain with it. Subsequently, unfair labor practice charges were brought. The Company defended on the grounds of invalidity of the certification of the production and maintenance unit, the timing of the election so as to prevent voting by seasonal employees, and the ruling on the challenged ballot. The Board sustained the General Counsel’s motion for a summary judgment.
The Company argues that it is entitled to a plenary review by the Board of the correctness of the Director’s representation determinations before the Board can entertain an unfair labor practice charge based on those determinations. The Board says that the contention was not presented to it and accordingly cannot be considered by the reviewing court. The Company urged before the Board that it was entitled to a new hearing on the representation issues. We need not consider whether the request for a hearing was sufficient to preserve the point because we recently-decided in Meyer Dairy, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 10 Cir., 429 F.2d 697, that the limited review provided by 29 CFR § 102.67 applies to Board review of any delegated action of a regional director. In so holding we rejected Pepsi-Cola Buffalo Bottling Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 409 F.2d 676, and followed the rule announced in National Labor Relations Board v. Magnesium Casting Company, 1 Cir., 427 F.2d 114. See also National Labor Relations Board v. Gold Spot Dairy, Inc., 10 Cir., 432 F.2d 125. The Company does not assert that it has any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence or that it was prevented from presenting any substantial and material evidence at the representation proceedings. In our opinion the Board summary judgment disposition was proper.
The Board has a wide discretion in determining an appropriate bargaining unit and its decision will be set aside only upon a showing that it is capricious or arbitrary. See § 9(b) of the Act; National Labor Relations Board v. Dewey Portland Cement Company, 10 Cir., 336 F.2d 117, 119; and National Labor Relations Board v. Groendyke Transport, Inc., 10 Cir., 372 F.2d 137, 140. The representation decisions of a regional director, if not set aside by the Board, are entitled to the same weight as a Board decision. Meyer Dairy, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, supra, and National Labor Relations Board v. Magnesium Casting Company, supra.
The Company objects to the inclusion within the production and maintenance unit of service station attendants and a bulk-tank driver because they engage in separate and distinct activities and have no common interest with the others in the unit. The Director found that there was some interchange of work, that all received the same fringe benefits, that there was common supervision, and that there was frequent contact among employees. He concluded that the community of interest was sufficient to warrant inclusion within the unit. On the record presented the unit determination was not arbitrary or capricious and must be sustained. See Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 10 Cir., 310 F.2d 478, 479-480.
Because of the seasonal nature of its operation the Company contends that the Director erred in not deferring the election until the spring when additional workers would be employed. The test of eligibility of seasonal employees to participate in a representation election is “whether an employee is sufficiently concerned with the terms and conditions of employment in a unit to warrant his participation in the selection of a bargaining agent.” National Labor Relations Board v. George Groh and Sons, 10 Cir., 329 F.2d 265, 268. The Director held that community of interest of seasonal employees depends on reasonable prospect of re-employment from year to year. The Company does not challenge this ruling. Applying this test, the Director found that the seasonal employees at the Mayetta location had a reasonable expectancy of re-employment and permitted them to vote. The Company now urges that seasonal employees at its Holton location should have been permitted to vote. We find nothing in the record relating to the rehiring of Holton seasonal employees. In our opinion the Director did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in declining to defer the election.
The outcome of the election in the clerical worker’s unit depended on the challenge to the ballot cast by Imogene Kinast, the wife of the Company’s general manager. The Director found that the work hours of Mrs. Kinast were “clearly tailored to her personal and family needs” and that she “enjoys a special privileged status as an employee of the Employer because of her marital relationship to the Employer’s general manager.” The challenge to her ballot was sustained.
The record justifies the finding of special status. Although one who is the wife of the general manager is not within the § 2(3) exclusion from the definition of “employee” of “any individual employed by a parent or spouse,” we are of the opinion that in the exercise of its discretion under § 9 the Board may exclude from a bargaining unit an employee who is related to a member of management, but not an owner, and who is granted special privileges. Uyeda v. Brooks, 6 Cir., 365 F.2d 326, 329. In the circumstances presented the rejection of Mrs. Kinast’s ballot was not arbitrary or capricious.
The order will be enforced.

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