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:
ARONSON et al. v. ROGERS.
No. 6187.
Circuit Court oí Appeals, Third Circuit.
May 14, 1937.
THOMPSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Arthur F. Egner, of Newark, N. J., for appellants.
Robert F. Darby and J. Henry Harrison, both of Newark, N. J., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and WELSH, District Judge.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In the court below the receiver of a failed bank sued and recovered judgment against six defendants, alleged guarantors, by a written agreement, of four notes made by Allsopp & Allsopp, Inc. Thereupon defendants appealed and the question involved is, as stated in their brief, “whether these defendants, under the facts of the case” — which are undisputed — “are liable on these notes.”
On April 2, 1930 the guarantors, by written agreement, contracted with the bank for an advance of $25,000 to said Allsopp & Allsopp, “with the understanding that said extended credit, up to that sum, when taken from the bank, from time to time, will have the approval of the representative of the guarantors, Louis V. Aronson.” The contract further provided: “This agreement shall remain in full force and effect until such time as the said Twenty-five thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars shall have been loaned to the said Allsopp & Allsopp, Incorporated, and until such time as said sum, or any portion of the same so loaned, shall have been fully repaid to the bank.” In such contract the bank stipulated: “The bank hereby agrees that any loan made under this agreement shall be renewable at maturity for consecutive periods of three months each, up to a total of one year, upon payment to the bank of ten per centum of the amount of said loan and interest thereon. And the parties hereto mutually agree that such renewals and renewals of renewals shall continue under the terms and conditions of this agreement until the last outstanding note be fully paid.” And the bank and the guarantors convenanted: “The guarantors and the bank hereby mutually covenant and agree that no liability shall attach under this agreement, until after a default by the said Allsopp & Allsopp, Incorporated, on moneys advanced under this agreement, shall operate to reduce, pro rata, the obligation of each of the several guarantors hereunder ; and that any such partial loan shall not be extended or the said amount again reloaned after payment, except upon the certification to the bank, in writing, by Louis V. Aronson, to the effect that all of the guarantors herein named assent to said extension or reloaning.”
The $25,000 was advanced, payments made thereon, and renewals thereof made, on which renewals Louis V. Aronson wrote his approval: “Approved: O. K. Louis V. Aronson.” “Approved by Louis V. Aron-son.” The renewal notes sued on were made more than a year after the agreement of April 2, 1930.
The defendants denied liability, first, on the ground that the approval of Aron-son was not in the form provided by the’ contract, viz.: “Upon the certification to the bank, in writing, by Louis V. Aronson, to the effect that all of the guarantors herein named assent to said extensions or re-loaning.” The trial judge held, and we think rightly, that the certification sufficiently complied with the language of the guaranty. He had written above his signature on the notes “approved” and “O. K.” Both the word and the well-known initials signify affirmation. They, therefore, indicate that the action required by this agreement had been taken. To this we may add that Aronson was himself one of the guarantors, was his co-guarantors’ then representative in the whole matter, and that in the nature of things he had the approval of his co-guarantors in renewing the note or he would not have signed himself and become sole guarantor.
But the defendants raise an additional defense, namely, that by the quoted clause the bank was restricted in its renewals to one year and then only if Allsopp paid 10 per cent. We cannot accede to this view. Manifestly the agreement of the bank was not a limitation of its right to .grant extensions, but was an assurance to the guarantors that if payments of 10 per cent, were made on the notes, the bank would grant extensions up to one year.
Holding the trial judge made no error in his construction and application of the contract, we affirm the judgment entered below.

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