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:
BURTZ-DURHAM CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc. and Continental Casualty Company, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 24551.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 5, 1967.
Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 14, 1967.
Alex McLennan, Scott Hogg, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.
John C. Eldridge, Stephen R. Felson, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Carl Eardley, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles L. Good-son, U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, BELL and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal concerns the alleged omission by a bidder on a government contract of items totalling $38,000 from a bid'which appellant sought to withdraw before acceptance.
In response to an invitation for bids to build a bridge, appellant submitted to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers a bid of $1,129,201.79, accompanied by a bid bond of 20%, executed by Continental Casualty Company. By the terms of the bid, the government reserved the right to reject any and all bids and further reserved the right to accept any bid which was most advantageous to the government. Attached to and incorporated by reference in the invitation was standard form 22 containing instructions to bidders and clearly prohibiting withdrawal of bids after the opening. If the successful bidder withdrew the bid, he would be liable for any differences by which the cost of procuring the work exceeded his bid; late bids and modifications and withdrawals received after the opening would not be considered unless due to a delay in the mails or mishandling by the government. The bid was submitted on the express condition that unit prices were to govern in case of a discrepancy. Further provisions set up a waiver of error formula which applied except as to clerical errors.
Armed Services Procurement Regulations provide an administrative remedy which may lead to a sanctioned withdrawal or adjustment if the prescribed procedures are followed. The gist of these regulations is that bids shall be checked on opening by the government for apparent mistakes or anything that would put the government on inquiry. A clerical mistake apparent on the face of the bid may be corrected by the government prior to award if verification of the corrected bid is then obtained from bidder. Where a bidder alleges a mistake other than apparent clerical mistake after opening and prior to the award, clear and convincing evidence must establish the existence of the mistake and the bidder must support his request by affidavits, original worksheets, and any other evidence which conclusively establishes the existence of the error, the amount of the error and the bid actually intended, and where the bidder fails to furnish such evidence, the contracting officer shall consider the bid as submitted, unless it is so far out of line with other bids or government estimates as reasonably to justify the conclusion that acceptance would be unfair to the bidder or other bona fide bidders.
The bid submitted by appellants showed a total of $1,129,201.79, which was erroneous because of a clerical error which listed a figure as $670,100 instead of $67,010. The government corrected the bid according to the controlling unit prices at a figure of $526,701.79.
The corrected bid was the lowest. Before award, appellants learned of the corrected bid and notified the government of an alleged omission of items totalling $38,000. An appearance was made before the contracting officer, but explanation for the omission was unsatisfactory to him. Appellants presented no affidavits or original worksheets and left no evidence with the contracting officer. The appellants then later telegraphed withdrawal of their bid and the contracting officer replied that he was without authority to permit withdrawal and that evidence according to the regulations had not been submitted. Apparently at a later date, an affidavit was submitted to the contracting officer, which he found not to amount to clear and convincing proof of error. The contract was awarded to the appellants but they refused to execute the documents. The contract was then awarded to the Newton Company for $576,910.50, and the government brought an action for the difference.
We conclude that it is not necessary for the court to resolve the many interesting and somewhat difficult questions of the law applicable to the formation of government contracts, especially the extent to which restrictions may be placed about the absolute right of withdrawal of a bid before acceptance. See generally Moffett, Hodgkins and Clarke Co. v. City of Rochester, 178 U.S. 373, 20 S.Ct. 957, 44 L.Ed. 1108 (1900); Scott v. United States, 44 Ct.Cl. 524 (1909), and see Pasley, Formation of Government Contracts — Application of Common law Principles — A Reply, 40 Cornell L.Q. 518 (1955). Essential to the defense by the contractor here is proof of the existence of the alleged mistake. The trial court found that appellants failed to prove by either preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing proof, as required in the regulations that a mistake had been made. Upon carefully reading the record dealing with the proof as to the existence of the mistake, we conclude that the trial court’s finding is not clearly erroneous. It is, therefore, of course, unnecessary for the court to go further to a consideration of the principles of law that would be applicable were the finding of fact by the trial court to the contrary.
The judgment is affirmed.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, Rule 25a, subpar. (b), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.

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: 2