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:
PANAMA TRANSPORT COMPANY et al., Defendants, Appellants, v. Nathan GREENBERG, Plaintiff, Appellee.
No. 5770.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
May 5, 1961.
Walter X. Connor, New York City, Joseph F. Dolan, Boston, Mass., James P. O’Neill, and Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New York City, on the brief, for appellants.
Daniel J. Hourihan, Boston, Mass., for appellee.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
A Spanish seaman and member of the crew of the S.S. Esso Rochester was injured on board his vessel on December 6, 1958, while it lay in the harbor of Portland, Maine. On December 9, 1958, a member of the bar employed by the plaintiff-appellee, who is a member, inter alia,, of the Maine and Massachusetts bars practicing in Boston, visited the seaman in a Portland hospital and obtained the seaman’s signature to a retainer in the following language:
“I hereby retain Nathan Green-berg, attorney-at-law, of Boston, Massachusetts and New York, New York, to represent me respecting my claim against the S.S. Esso Rochester its owners and operators, and to collect damages on my behalf. For such services rendered, I agree to pay my said attorney a fee not to exceed services rendered. I agree to pay my said attorney a fee not to exceed one-third of any amount collected by way of court verdict or settlement.
“Dated this 9th day of December, 1958.”
Subsequently the seaman was visited by representatives of the defendants, one of them the owner of the vessel and the other its husbanding agent, and eventually on February 10, 1959, the seaman wrote the plaintiff a letter discharging him as counsel on the ground that his services were no longer required.
The plaintiff-appellee then brought this action on the law side of the court below under its diversity jurisdiction for wrongful interference by the defendant-appellants with his advantageous contractual relationship with the seaman. After trial without a jury the court gave judgment for the plaintiff and the defendants appealed.
The appeal suggests a number of interesting questions but we do not reach them for lack of jurisdiction.
The allegations of the complaint with respect to the diversity of the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy between them are adequate to show federal jurisdiction. But the plaintiff testified categorically that, in his opinion based on his experience as a specialist in suits in admiralty for personal injuries, the seaman's “case was worth about $25,-000.” Thus on the plaintiff’s own testimony the gross fee he could possibly receive under his retainer would be one third of that amount or $8,333.33, and, of course, his profit from the business would be substantially less.
Out of his own mouth the plaintiff satisfies us to a legal certainty that he did not have a claim for the amount necessary to confer federal jurisdiction and either knew or reasonably ought to have known that fact. On the authority of Williams v. Nottawa, 1881, 104 U.S. 209, 26 L.Ed. 719; McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 1936, 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135; St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 1938, 303 U.S. 283, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845:
Judgment will be entered vacating the judgment of the District Court and remanding the case to that court with direction to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
. The District Court found that actually the seaman’s case was worth $15,000 and that the plaintiff’s damages for the loss of his retainer amounted to $2,845.
. See also the “Historical and Revision Notes” to § 1359, 28 U.S.C.A.

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: 99