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:
CARTER v. SNOOK, Warden of U. S. Penitentiary.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 24, 1928.
No. 5315.
Frank A. Doughman, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
J. W. Henley, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.
WALKER, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus, which was issued pursuant to the prayer of a petition whieh was filed on February 4,1928. That petition complained of the detention of the petitioner in the United States penitentiary at Atlanta under a judgment, rendered in a consolidated ease on December 6, 1926, which, on petitioner’s pleas of guilty to two counts in one indictment, to three counts in another indictment, and to two counts in another indictment, sentenced him to be confined in said penitentiary for a period of eight years, commencing on the day he is committed to said penitentiary, and to pay the sum of $8,000 fine. Petitioner was committed to said penitentiary on December 8, 1926. The counts to which petitioner pleaded guilty charged sundry violations of the National Prohibition Act. The offense charged in each of five of those counts —a second offense of selling intoxicating liquor in violation of section 3, title 2, of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA § 12)— was punishable by a maximum fine of $2,0.00 and imprisonment of not more than five years.
This court has decided that where a defendant, convicted on two or more counts of an indictment charging separate offenses of the same kind, was given a sentence in gross for a term of imprisonment not exceeding the sum of the terms whieh might have been imposed under the counts separately, the sentence, although it may he irregular, is not a nullity, and the defendant cannot be discharged on habeas corpus. Blake v. Moyer, Warden (C. C. A.) 208 F. 678.
But, even if the sentence of imprisonment in question properly could be regarded as a nullity to some extent, it was not a nullity except as to the part of the sentence which was in excess of the term of imprisonment 'which lawfully could be imposed on the conviction of the petitioner on one of the counts to which he pleaded guilty; and petitioner was not entitled to be discharged on habeas corpus prior to the expiration of the five-year term of imprisonment to which he was subject to be sentenced under any one of several counts on which he was convicted. De Bara v. United States (C. C. A.) 99 F. 942. It follows that the order discharging the writ was not erroneous, the five-year term of imprisonment imposable upon petitioner’s conviction under any one of several counts to which he pleaded guilty not having expired when the petition was sued out, and when the writ was discharged.
That order 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: 0