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:
Maurice WEINHART, Individually, and d/b/a Federal Scrap Iron and Metal Company, Appellant, v. ÆTNA INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, Boston Insurance Company, a Massachusetts Corporation, et al., Appellees.
No. 13062.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 16, 1957.
Joseph A. Luyekx, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
Davies & Moesta, Detroit, Mich., Rod-man C. Moesta, Detroit, Mich., of counsel, for appellees.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Following a fire on May 7,1952, on the third floor of a business building in Detroit, Michigan, the appellee insurance companies paid to the owners of the building $18,485 under their policies of insurance to cover the cost of repairs for the damage caused by the fire. As subrogees of the owners, the appellees brought this action against the appellant to recover the amounts so paid, alleging that the fire was caused by his negligence.
In preparing the building for new tenants, the owners had contracted with the appellant for the removal by him of certain pipe in the building, which passed through wood floors and ceilings. In doing the work appellant used an acetylene torch. On the day of the fire appellant’s employees quit work at 3:30 p. m. and left the premises between 3:30 p. m. and 4:00 p. m. The fire was discovered and reported to the Fire Department at 8:34 p. m. There was no eye witness as to how the fire started.
The District Judge, trying the case without a jury, found that the appellant did not use proper care in operating the acetylene torch; that the fire was caused by sparks given off in the operation of the torch coming in contact with the pipe on the third floor of the building ; that a small fire had been started by one of appellant’s employees a day or two previous to the fire involved in this case, which was called to his attention and was put out by an employee of the owners of the building; that the appellant did not make a proper inspection of the premises after using the torch to determine whether or not any sparks given off by the metal were still smouldering before leaving the property; and that the fire was caused by the negligence of the appellant or his workmen. He also found that the owners of the building used proper care, under the circumstances, to protect their own property and were not contributorily negligent. He gave judgment for the appellees in the amount of $18,485, from which this appeal was taken.
Although there was some conflict in the evidence, the findings of fact upon which the finding of negligence is based are supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous. Witnesses available to appellant who could have testified about the facts in dispute were not offered by appellant, with the resulting inference that their testimony would have been unfavorable. Shuell v. London Amusement Co., 6 Cir., 123 F.2d 302, 306.
The finding that negligence on the part of appellant was the cause of the fire was a justifiable conclusion from the basic facts, and not being clearly erroneous must be accepted on this review. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 394, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746; Rich v. Pappas, 6 Cir., 229 F.2d 308, 313.
The judgment 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