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:
In the Matter of COUNTRY LAD FOODS, INC., Bankrupt. Marion B. STOKES, Trustee, Appellant, v. FIRST GEORGIA BANK, Appellee.
No. 74-2374
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 6, 1974.
Edwin G. Russell, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Ezra H. Cohen, Mack O. Butler, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before COLEMAN, DYER and GEE, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 9th Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc., v. Citizens Casualty Co. of N. Y. et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court affirming the holding of the Bankruptcy Court that the First Georgia Bank’s security interest was not voidable by the Trustee under section 70(e) of the Bankruptcy Act. We affirm.
The First Georgia Bank had a perfected security interest in the Bankrupt’s personal property and trade fixtures. The Bankruptcy Court authorized the Trustee to sell the personal property and fixtures free and clear, and all liens were to attach to the proceeds. It was further ordered that each party asserting a claim of right, title or interest in the property was to file a complete statement of his claim, and that each claim not thus filed might be considered by the court to have been waived. After allowance of the prior secured claims, $44,312.79 remained in the estate, all of which was claimed by the Bank.
Bankrupt’s lessor had filed an unsecured proof of claim in the amount of $17,954.69 for unpaid rent and ad valo-rem tax, but it did not make any claim to the property of the Bankrupt and did not respond to the court’s order requiring all claims to the property to be filed. The Trustee, nonetheless, concluded that since there was no unequivocal waiver under Ga.Code Ann. § 109A-9-313C3), the Trustee could invoke the landlord’s rights through section 70(e) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 110(e), to render the Bank’s security interest void.
The Bankruptcy Court held that the Bank’s security interest in the trade fixtures of the Bankrupt was not voidable under section 70(e) of the Act, finding inter alia that the lessor had not asserted a claim to the fixtures. The district court affirmed.
We deem it unnecessary to construe the provisions of the lease, or to construe the Georgia statute relied on by the Trustee, supra, or Ga.Code Ann. § 61-110, relied on by the court below. We are content to rest our decision on the failure of the landlord to assert any claim it may have had in the fixtures after it had been placed on notice to do so by the Bankruptcy Court. Such failure compels the conclusion that the landlord waived its claim, and having done so the Trustee cannot assert it.
Affirmed.
. The statute provides :
A security interest which attaches to goods after, they become fixtures is valid against all persons subsequently acquiring interests in the real estate except as stated in subsection (4) but is invalid against any person with an interest in the real estate at the time the security interest attaches to the goods who has not in writing consented to the security interest or disclaimed an interest in the goods as fixtures.
. Ga.Code.Ann. § 61-110, provides :
A tenant during the term or a continuation thereof, or while he is in possession under the landlord, may remove trade fixtures erected by him. After the term and possession are ended, they are regarded as abandoned to the use of the landlord and become the latter’s property.

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