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:
MAYFAIR EXTENSION, Inc., Appellant, v. Warren E. MAGEE, Appellee.
No. 13319.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Feb. 5, 1957.
Decided Feb. 21, 1957.
Mr. Robert H. McNeill, Washington, í). C., for appellant.
Mr. William J. Hughes, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before BAZELON, FAHY and BAS-TIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from the District Court’s denial of appellant corporation’s motion, under Rules 55 and 60, Fed.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C. to vacate the default judgment entered in appellee’s suit on two promissory notes and for attorney’s fees.
The suit was filed on March 30, 1954, when appellee was general counsel and secretary of appellant. Service was made the next day on appellant’s executive vice president, Cassell. According to affidavits in support of the motion to vacate, Cassell and appellee were denied re-election at a Board of Directors meeting on April 16, 1954, and they withdrew from the meeting without mentioning the suit and the service upon CasselL Appellee obtained judgment by default on April 26,1954.
It appears from Cassell’s affidavit that one Walker, who was employed as a property manager by appellant corporation after April 16, 1954, knew of the suit and service of process before the entry of the default judgment. Walker’s affidavit, executed a week or so after Cas-sell’s was filed, is completely silent as to whether he had such knowledge or, if so, conveyed it to any officer or director. There is no dispute, however, that appellant was fully advised of the judgment no later than May 7, 1954. The motion to vacate was not filed until April 25, 1955 — almost a year later.
Appellant says its motion is premised on a breach of trust by attorney against client and therefore falls within Rule 60(b) (3), Fed.R.Civ.P. Under this rule a default judgment may be set aside for “fraud * * *, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.” Appellant argues that a motion to vacate for such reason may be brought any time within one year. But the rule requires that “The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and [when based upon Rule 60 (b^ than one year after the [default] judgment * * *.” Thus necessary that the motic in one year, but also within a reasonable time within the one-year period. Upon the record before us, the latter requirement The District Court was, therefore, correct in denying the motipn. (3)] not more it was not only on be filed with-that it be filed
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