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:
The BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John B. CONNALLY, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, and United States of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 72-1820.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued April 3, 1973.
Decided May 1, 1973.
John S. McLellan, Kingsport, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant.
Jean A. Staudt, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellees; Harlington Wood, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., John L. Bowers, Jr., U. S. Atty., Walter H. Fleischer, Thomas J. Press, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff bank in this action sought recoupment of money in the sum of $5,054 which was set off from the funds of plaintiff bank on the instruction of defendants while the funds were in the hands of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Georgia. By this means the United States Government made itself whole for the loss to it resulting from plaintiff bank’s having cashed six stolen Series E United States Savings Bonds for a Mr. Monroe, a professional forger who presented himself as a Mr. Kreiss, the owner of the bonds, having in his possession a forged driver’s license, Social Security card, and credit cards in the name of said Kreiss.
The facts before the District Judge indicated that Mr. Monroe was a complete stranger to the bank personnel, that the bonds had a New Jersey mailing address, and that he presented a driver’s license with a Pennsylvania address. The bank officers did not seek to corroborate Mr. Monroe’s statements as to his intention to purchase a coin collection in Elizabethton, Tennessee, nor did the bank officers seek corroboration of his identification documents.
The District Judge found that the bank personnel “simply did not' exert due care in cashing these forged bonds.”
31 U.S.C. § 757c(i) (1970) authorizes the Treasurer of the United States to issue regulations pertaining to the fault or negligence of paying agents such as the plaintiff bank in the cashing of Savings Bonds. In a Treasury Department statement dated December 19, 1947, concerning identification of persons seeking to cash such bonds, and pertaining directly to the employment of motor vehicle operator’s licenses for such purposes, the instruction statement said in part, “In any case of doubt, other acceptable documents should be required for corroborative purposes.”
Under the total circumstances of this case, as set out above, and as set out more fully in the District Judge’s opinion filed June 15, 1972, we conclude that the District Judge’s finding of lack of due care is not clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
The judgment of the District Court 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