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:
CHAS. H. LILLY CO. et al. v. I. F. LAUCKS, Inc., et al.
No. 7084.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 21, 1933.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing denied April 13, 1934.
SAWTELLE, Circuit Judge.
This ease is similar to and was consolidated for trial with the ease of Lilly Co. et al. v. Laucks, Inc. (C. C. A.) 68 F.(2d) 175, No. 7083, opinion filed herewith. Case No. 7083 will loe referred to hereinafter as the Johnson Patent Case. Both suits are between the same parties.
In this suit, as in the Johnson Patent Case, the bill of complaint named Kaseno Products Company and George F. Linquist as direct infringers of plaintiff-appellee’s patents, by reason of having manufactured and sold an adhesive embodying the products of appel-lee’s inventions, and alleged that the Chas. H. Lilly Company and Wilmot II, Lilly had eon-tributorily infringed the patents by reason of having “sold to said Kaseno Products Company, soya bean and/or vegetable protein material adapted and intended to be employed as a substantial part of the combination invented and patented, i. e., as a substantial part in the manufacture of said infringing adhesive of said Kaseno Products Company, said Chas. H. Lilly Company well knowing that said material was to be thus used to manufacture said infringing adhesive and fully intending that it should be so used.”
The two patents involved in this ease.are Letters Patent 1,689,732, referred to as the Caustic Soda Patent, and Letters Patent 1,-691,661, referred to as the Carbon Bisulphide Patent. The relation of these patents to the Johnson patent is explained as follows in the brief of appellee: “The Johnson ‘patent’ covers broadly the use of soya bean flour as an adhesive base. The ‘Johnson’ patent may be termed the ‘parent’ patent, relating essentially to the glue base, while the ‘Caustic Soda’ and ‘Carbon Bisulphide’ patents, which relate to improvements in chemicals to be used in connection with the glue base, may be termed ‘improvement’ or ‘additional’ patents, and are subsidiary to the ‘Johnson’ patent so far as the same relate to soya bean flour as a glue base. The ‘Caustic Soda’ patent teaches, among other things, how to make a ‘better glue’ using soya bean flour as a glue base. The ‘Carbon Bisulphide’ patent teaches that an adhesive can be made water resistant with the use of carbon bisulphide. Claims 13 and 14, which were held valid and infringed, by the lower court, teach that added water resistance to soya bean glues may be accomplished by the use of carbon bisul-phide.”
The trial court found that the claims of the patents which were in issue are valid, and have been infringed by Kaseno Products Company and George F. Linquist, as alleged, and eontributorily infringed by Chas. H. Lilly Company and Wilmot H. Lilly.
Here, as in the Johnson Patent Case, but two of the defendants, namely, Chas. H. Lilly Company and Wilmot H. Lilly, have appealed from the decree in favor of appel-lee, and the sole question before this court is, Does the evidence sustain the finding that appellant Lilly Company and appellant Lilly eontributorily infringed appellee’s patents?
For the reasons stated in our opinion in the Johnson Patent Case, appellee’s motion to disregard appellant’s assignments of error and exceptions is denied.
The evidence adduced by appellee in support of its charge of contributory infringement in this ease is the same as in the Johnson Patent Case, as a reference to the opinion of the trial court will disclose. [59 F.(2d) 811] A detailed discussion of the evidence in connection therewith would serve no useful purpose, but would merely be a repetition of what is recited in our opinion in the Johnson Patent Case. Here, as in the Johnson Patent Case, the evidence does not, in our opinion, establish that appellants furnished the element in question to Kasono Products Company with the intent and for the purpose that it would be used in manufacturing’ infringing g-lues. For the reasons stated in our opinion in the Johnson Patent Case, and on the authorities there cited, the decree herein, in so far as it holds appellant Lilly Company and appellant Lilly guilty of contributory infringement of appellee's Caustic Soda Patent and appellee’s Carbon Bisulphide Patent, must be reversed; and it is so ordered.

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