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:
LUCKENBACH GULF S. S. CO., Inc., v. HENDERSON, Deputy Com’r of Seventh Compensation Dist., et al.
No. 10346.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 6, 1943.
Rehearing Denied March 11, 1943.
Harold M. Rouchelle and F. S. Normann,, both of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Herbert W. Christenberry, U. S. Atty., Nicole E. Simoneaux, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Claire E. Loeb, all of New Orleans, La., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment sustaining an award of compensation to the surviving widow of a longshoreman under the Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq. The judgment is challenged here only on the ground that the widow, who was not living with her husband at the time of his injury and death, was not shown to be living apart from him for justifiable cause or by reason of his desertion, such proof being essential to recovery under the Act.
The record contains positive testimony that the claimant and the decedent were married in 1940 and lived together as husband and wife for several months; that, after an argument about financial affairs, the husband abruptly left the marital domicile and went to live with another woman; that he repeatedly refused to return to his wife, though asked by her to do so; that he continued to provide his wife with small sums of money for living expenses, and offered to let her come to him in the home of the other woman, which she declined to do; and that claimant was at all times ready and willing to have decedent return to their home to live, and so advised him, but he remained unwilling to come back until hospitalized by the injury causing his death.
Witnesses for appellant contradicted much of this testimony, and gave a different version of the circumstances surrounding the separation, but the deputy commissioner believed the testimony outlined above, and found as a fact that claimant was living apart from her husband at the time of his injury and death for justifiable cause and by reason of his desertion. Being thus supported by substantial evidence, the finding of the deputy commissioner is conclusive upon this court.
The judgment is affirmed.
33 U.S.C.A. §§ 902(16), 904, and 909.
South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. Bassett, 309 U.S. 251, 60 S.Ct. 544, 84 L.Ed. 732.

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