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:
GORMAN LEONARD COAL CO. v. PENINSULAR STATE S. S. CORPORATION. MYSTIC TERMINAL CO. v. SAME.
Nos. 2797, 2798.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
June 15, 1933.
G. Philip Wardnor, of Boston, Mass., for appellants.
Fitz-Henry Smith, Jr., and Thomas H. Walsh, both of Boston, Mass., and Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, of New York City, for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.
MORTON, Circuit Judge.
This is a suit to recover for damage alleged to have been done to the tank-top ceilings and other parts of the steamship Lake Gaiewood by the Mystic Terminal Company in discharging her. The libelant is the owner of the vessel; the Gorman Leonard Coal Company chartered her to carry a cargo of coal from Newport News to Boston, the 'charterer to do the loading and discharging. Tlie coal company arranged with the Mystic Company to discharge the steamer at Boston on its account. The libel charges that the discharging was negligently done and inflicted damage on the vessel beyond reasonable wear and tear. The district judge found for the libelant against the Mystic Company as primarily liable, and against the coal company as secondarily liable. Both respondents appealed.
The appeal presents no serious question of law. Neither party objects to the rulings of law on which the case was decided. The contention of the appellant is that the district judge was wrong in his findings of fact. The testimony was greatly in conflict, both as to the condition of the vessel at the time when she was loaded, and as to the damage, if any, done during the discharge. Several of the important witnesses testified orally, and the district judge had the advantage of seeing them on the stand. It was undisputed that, immediately on the completion of the discharge, a written statement of damage was handed by the master of the vessel to the stevedore. The mate of the steamer testified that he remonstrated to the stevedore while the discharge by the Mystic Company was in progress against the roughness with which it was being done. The stevedore denied this testimony. On an official survey two or three weeks later, the steamer was found in a damaged condition. In the interim she had carried other cargoes; and the respondents contended that such of the damage found on. the survey as did not antedate the discharge by the Mystic Company had been done in loading and discharging the later cargoes.
Grab buckets weighing about four tons were used by the Mystic Company in discharging the Lake Galewood. It cannot be doubted that the use of such heavy and powerful appliances on a vessel not specially built for carrying coal would bo likely to do damage unless they were very carefully handled. If the Mystic Company saw fit to use them, it was bound to see that requisite care was exercised. There was a strong suggestion that the discharge was hurried because it ran into Saturday afternoon. It would serve no useful purpose to go into the details of the evidence and the contradictions. In such a situation the conclusions of the district judge carry much weight (Merchants’ & Miners Transp. Co. v. Nova Scotia S. S. Corp., 40 F.(2d) 167 (C. C. A. 1), and we are by no means satisfied that they wore erroneous. He carefully discriminated between the various items of damage claimed; and ho allowed only those which he was satisfied were caused by negligence in handling the grab buckets. His decree must be affirmed.
The decree of the District Court is affirmed with costs to the appellee in this court.

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