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:
DE BARDELEBEN COAL CORPORATION et al. v. HENDERSON, Deputy Com’r of Compensation Dist., et al.
No. 10923.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 10, 1944.
Richard B. Montgomery, Jr., of New Orleans, La., for appellants.
Herbert W. Christenberry, U. S. Atty., and N. E. Simoneaux, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New Orleans, La., for Joseph H. Henderson, Deputy Commissioner, etc., appellee.
Maurice R. Woulfe, of New Orleans, La., for Sarah Jackson Brown, appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.
Brought to set aside an award under the Federal Compensation Act, the claim was that compensation was validly provided by the Statutes of Louisiana, and the Federal Act was without application. The district judge, disagreeing with this view, dismissed the suit, and plaintiffs have appealed.
Here, relying heavily on New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. McManigal, 2 Cir., 87 F.2d 332, appellants insist that, though the accident occurred on navigable waters, this is one of those cases where the accident “had no direct relation to navigation, and the application of the local law cannot materially affect any rules of the sea whose uniformity is essential”, and, therefore, “recovery * * * through Workmen’s Compensation proceedings” not only may be, but has been, “validly provided by state law”. Appellees, with equal vigor and more citations, deny this, insisting that either under Parker v. Motor Boat Sales, 314 U.S. 244, 62 S.Ct. 221, 86 L.Ed. 184, or under “the first come first served” rule of Davis v. Department of Labor, 317 U.S. 249, 63 S.Ct. 225, 87 L.Ed. 246, federal jurisdiction was properly maintained.
We agree with appellees. Before the Parker case was decided, but after the Supreme Court in Employers’ Liability Insurance Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 233, 50 S.Ct. 308, 74 L.Ed. 823, had reversed our holding in 31 F.2d 497, 498, that to apply the Texas Workmen’s Compensation law, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq., to an injury suffered while unloading a ship by an employee, whose duties were normally on land, would not “materially affect any rules of the sea whose uniformity is essential”, this court, in Continental Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 5 Cir., 64 F.2d 802, 804, announced the view that the federal compensation laws should be liberally construed to cover every case where the injury occurred on navigable waters and where within the rule of the Jensen and Cook cases, the action would have been in admiralty. In that case we said:
“The question whether jurisdiction over a maritime tort could be asserted under the compensation laws of the states, or existed exclusively in admiralty, was an important one when the decisions were rendered in the Rohde [Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U.S. 469, 42 S.Ct. 157, 66 L.Ed. 321, 25 A.L.R. 1008], the Braud [Millers’ Indemnity Underwriters v. Braud, 270 U.S. 59, 46 S.Ct. 194, 70 L.Ed. 470], and other similar cases referred to in Colonna’s Shipyard Co. v. Lowe, supra [D.C., 22 F.2d 843]; but since the passage of this act (the Federal Workmen’s Compensation Act) the importance of that question has largely disappeared. * * * The elaborate provisions of the Act, viewed in the light of prior Congressional legislation as interpreted by the Supreme Court, leaves no room for doubt, as it appears to us, that Congress intended to exercise to the fullest extent all the power and jurisdiction it had over the subject-matter. The liability of an employer who makes provision to secure compensation to his employees is exclusive of all other liability that might be asserted by them against him. State compensation laws and this compensation law of Congress are mutually exclusive of each other.”
The Parker case, supra, substantially adopts this view, and such aberrations from it as the quasi legislative decision in the Davis case appears to present is only in appearance. Another of those hard cases which make bad law, state jurisdiction was upheld there for announced reasons having more legislative than judicial force, and not because of any purpose to adopt a rule contrary to that which this court had announced in the Lawson case and the Parker case had followed. As the Parker case pointed out, it is not at all necessary now to redetermine the correctness vel non of the Jensen case or of any of the brood, hatched from it, which, teetering and wavering on the line the Jensen case had drawn between state and federal jurisdiction, drew it now on this, and! now on the other, side as hard cases piled up to make bad law worse. It is sufficient to say that Congress intended the compensation act to have a coverage coextensive with the limits of its authority and that the provision “if recovery * * * may not validly be provided by State law” was placed in the act not as a relinquishment of any part of the field which Congress could validly occupy but only to save the act from judicial condemnation, by making it clear that it did not intend to legislate beyond its constitutional powers. Having in mind the confused and confusing mass of quasi legislative decisions which, as such decisions always tend to do, had rendered the law almost hopelessly uncertain, this provision was inserted to avoid, not to provide, a new basis for further judicial trimming. In the application of the act, therefore, the broadest ground it permits of should be taken. No ground should be yielded to state jurisdiction in cases falling within the principle of the Jensen case merely because the Supreme Court, before the Federal Compensation Law went into effect, did here a little, there a little, chip and whittle Jensen down in the mass of conflicting and contradictory decisions in which it advanced and applied the “local concern” doctrine to save to employees injured on navigable waters, and otherwise remediless, the remedies state compensation laws afforded them. In short, the Federal Compensation Law now in effect, the judicial tergiversations which went on before its passage no longer have point. This is what we held in the Lawson case, what the Supreme Court held in the Parker case, supra. We adhere to that holding. The judgment was right. It is affirmed.
“Coverage, (a) Compensation shall be payable under this act (Chapter) in respect of disability or death of an employee, but only if the disability or death results from an injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any dry dock) and if recovery for the disability or death through workmen’s compensation proceedings mwy not validly be provided by State law.” (Emphasis supplied.) 33 U.S.C.A. § 903.
“4391. Application of act—Definitions.—This act shall apply only to the following: * * *
“2. Every person performing services arising out of and incidental to his employment in the course of his employer’s trade, business or occupation in the following hazardous trades, businesses, and occupations:
“Hazards
“(a) The operation, construction, repair, removal, maintenance and demolition of railways and railroads, vessels, boats, and other watercrafts, terminal docks * * Darts Louisiana General Statutes; Act No. 20 of 1914, § 1.
Andrew Brown, deceased, was employed by the DeBardeleben Coal Company at Algiers, Louisiana, as a member of a “shore gang”; the employer owned a fleet of barges which were used for the business of transportation and commerce by water; as a member of the shore gang it was the deceased’s work to keep up the floating equipment, to knock the rust off, to help paint and repair the barges while they were afloat, and to go upon the barges to make the repairs. On January 20, 1943, deceased was instructed by his superior to shout a message to a captain of one of the tugs which was offshore on the Mississippi River, relative to the movement of one of the barges; in order to get as close as possible to the tug on which the captain was, deceased crossed upon a barge which was moored near the bank of the river and from there attempted to shout the message; while there he fell into the water and was drowned.
Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 37 S.Ct. 524, 61 L.Ed. 1086, L.R.A.1918C, 451 Ann.Cas.1917E, 900.

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