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:
CHICAGO & E. R. CO. v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
December 12, 1927.
No. 3913.
Railroads @=>229(3) — Movement of engine and 28 cars from yard onto main track and into another yard was “train movement,” within Safety Appliance Act, § 2 (45 USCA § 9).
Where train in question came to yard and after train had broken up and cars were distributed, 28 cars remained for movement to and further switching in another yard or section, and engine and 28 cars moved onto main track for distance of 1,500 feet, and then entered the other yard, or section of yard, and moved distance of 2,850 feet, no stops being made for purpose of switching, movement was “train movement,” within meaning of Safety Appliance Act, § 2 (45 USCA § 9 [Comp. St. §8614]).
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Indiana.
The Chicago & Erie Railroad Company brings error.
Affirmed.
John E. Gavin, of Chicago, Ill. (Mitchell D. Eollansbee and Clyde E. Shorey, both of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
James S. Hawley, for defendant in error.
Before EVANS, PAGE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PAGE, Circuit Judge.
The question raised is: Was the handling in question of its freight ears by the Erie Railroad, at Huntington, Ind., a switching operation, or was it a “train movement,” within the meaning of section 2 of the Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1903 (32 Stat. p. 943 [45 USCA § 9; Comp. St. § 8614])?
We are in serious doubt as to whether the record presents anything for review, but that question has not been raised by the parties. What are switching operations, and what are train movements, within the meaning of the Safety Appliance statutes, has many times been presented to the courts.
The Supreme Court has said that: “A train in the sense intended consists of an engine and ears which have been assembled and coupled together for a run or trip along the road.” U. S. v. Erie R. R., 237 U. S. 402, 407, 35 S. Ct. 621, 624 (59 L. Ed. 1019). In the same case the court gave a general definition of what constitutes switching operations, and it was held that the acts there in question were train movements within the statute.
We find very little to distinguish that case from this one. In that ease and in United States v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., 237 U. S. 410, 35 S. Ct. 634, 59 L. Ed. 1023, very many conditions and elements were considered which seem to influence the determination of the question. In the Burlington Case, there were no fixed schedules, and the movements were not controlled by train dispatchers, but by block signals. It was there held that the absence of a caboose or markings did not make the engine and connected ears any less a train, nor did the fact that the men in charge were designated as yard or switching crews make it any the less a train movement.
In Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge Co. v. United States, 249 U. S. 534, 539, 39 S. Ct. 355, 357 (63 L. Ed. 757), the court said: “But the construction which the act should receive is not to be found in balancing the dangers which would result from obeying the law with those which would result from violating it, nor in considering what other precautions will equal, in the promotion of safety, those prescribed by the act. Such considerations were for Congress when enacting the law and it has repeatedly been held by this court that other provisions of the Safety Appliance Act impose upon the carrier the absolute duty of compliance in eases to which they apply and that failure to comply will not be excused by carefulness to avoid the danger which the appliances prescribed were intended to guard against, nor by the adoption of what might be considered equivalents of the requirements of the act.”
In United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 254 U. S. 251, 254, 41 S. Ct. 101, 102 (65 L. Ed. 249), it was said:- “A moving locomotive with cars attached is without the provision of the act only when it is no it a train, as where the operation is that of switching, classifying and assembling cars within railroad yards for the purpose of making up trains.”
The whole question was considered at length, and many authorities cited, in Illinois Central R. Co. v. United States, 14 F.(2d) 747 (C. C. A. 8th Cir.). Possibly no exact rule can be laid down by which it can, in all cases, be determined whether there is a train movement or a mere switching operation. In this ease, whether the three sections constituted one yard or three yards, we think, is immaterial. We have here these facts:
After the west-bound train in question came to section B of the Huntington yard, and the train had been broken up and distribution of cars made, pursuant to instructions, 28 ears remained in section B of said yard for movement to and further switching in section C. The switch engine was attached to the 28 ears and “moved from the north (or west) end of section B of the defendant’s yard out onto its west-bound main track, used by its through freight and passenger trains, and northward (or westward) along said main track for a distance of 1,500 feet, at which point it entered section C of defendant’s yard and continued northward (or westward) over its switching lead and No. 10 track, a distance of approximately' 2,850 feet.”
That west-bound track was “the only track connecting section B with section C of the Huntington yards. * * * The air hose between the tender of the locomotive and the first ear were not coupled. * * * No stops were made for the purpose of setting out, picking up or otherwise switching the cars. * * After the’train * * * arrived at the point in section C of said yard designated as E on Exhibit 3, the crew proceeded, without delay, to classify and deliver the 28 ears on the various tracks of section C.”
In addition to a number of freight and passenger trains “there are from 35 to 40 movements of engines and cabooses, pusher engines or engines with ears attached each 24 hours, in both directions, on the west-bound track,” over which the movements in question were made. There were numerous street crossings and a railroad crossing at grade, over which numerous trains passed daily. An engine and 28 cars would make a train approximately 1,000 feet long.
In so far as they may be considered as influential in determining the ease, we are of opinion that there were present all of the elements of danger against which Congress intended to protect employees and the persons and property of the public by providing an adequate means for controlling train operations. The time necessary to couple or uncouple ears, as well as many other elements discussed in this case, must not influence the construction of the statute by the courts unless and until Congress shall make obedience to the law conditional and not absolute.
We think there is shown a “train movement,” within the meaning of the statute, and that the judgment should be, and it is, 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