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:
KAMINER et al. v. CLARK, Attorney General of the United States, et al.
No. 10267.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June 30, 1949.
Decided July 11, 1949.
Writ of Certiorari Denied Nov. 7, 1949.
See 70 S.Ct. 147.
Mr. Irving Jaffe, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Jack Wasserman and Thomas Cooley, II, Washington, D. C, were on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, and Messrs. Ross O’Donoghue and Samuel K. Abrams, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. Joseph M. Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellees.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Leon Kaminer, is an alien who arrived at the Port of New York and sought to enter the United States. On the ground that to admit him would be prejudicial to the best interests of the nation, the Attorney General ordered that he be excluded and deported. This action was taken under regulations promulgated pursuant to a presidential proclamation, which in turn was based upon an act of June 21, 1941. That statute empowers the President, in time of war or other national emergency, to proclaim restrictions and prohibitions upon the departure of persons from, and their entry into, the United States.
Kaminer sued the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Immigration in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a declaratory judgment that the act referred to, as implemented by the proclamation and regulations thereunder, be declared unconstitutional; that deportation or further detention without a hearing be declared illegal and void; that a hearing be granted; and that meanwhile the order of deportation be suspended and release on bond be permitted.
A statutory three-judge court held constitutional the act of Congress pursuant to which the executive action was taken, and remanded the cause to a single judge for such further proceedings as might be appropriate. Thereupon the District Court dismissed the complaint as amended, and this appeal followed.
While this suit is for a declaratory judgment, it is substantially similar to an application for a writ of habeas corpus, because, in addition to the claim of unconstitutionality, it com plains that the appellant’s detention without a hearing is unlawful. Habeas corpus would lie only in the Southern District of New York, where the appellant was detained on Ellis Island at the time this suit was instituted. An action for declaratory judgment cannot be substituted for habeas corpus so as to give jurisdiction to a district other than that in which the applicant is confined or restrained. If the appellant has a right to the sort of declaratory judgment which he seeks, he must assert it in the Southern District of New York, as he would be required to do if he had elected to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. The District Court properly dismissed the action, because it lacked jurisdiction.
We express no opinion, and mean to intimate none, as to whether the appellant is entitléd either to a writ of habeas corpus or to a declaratory judgment.
Affirmed.
There were originally three appellants, but- two of them have abandoned their appeals.
55 Stat. 252, 22 U.S.C.A. §§ 223 to 226b.
Ahrens v. Clark, 1948, 335 U.S. 188, 68 S.Ct. 1443, 92 L.Ed. 1898.
Clark v. Memolo, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C.—, 174 F.2d 978.

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: 0