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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John G. DUDLEY, Appellant.
No. 93, Docket 25179.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 14, 1958.
Decided Nov. 5, 1958.
See, also, 154 F.Supp. 623.
Barry H. Garfinkel and Maurice N. Nessen, New York City, for appellant.
Earl J. McHugh, New York City, Arthur H. Christy, U. S. Atty., New York City, George I. Gordon, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, of counsel, for appellee.
Before HAND, HINCKS and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals from a judgment of Judge Weinfeld, sitting without a jury, convicting him of unlawfully receiving and selling 398 grains of heroin (21 U.S.C.A. §§ 173, 174). Two questions are raised on this appeal: (1) that the evidence as “a matter of law” was not convincing beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) that one of judge Wein-feld’s two findings is inconsistent with the other. The evidence was the testimony of two witnesses, Latta and Lu-bert, government agents. Latta swore that he went with a woman to an apartment in Manhattan where the woman introduced him to the accused. After some talk they agreed upon the price of an ounce of heroin, and Latta gave the accused $150. The accused went into the hall; he came back in a few minutes, saying that he could not “reach his man,” and later made three or four telephone calls; and finally came back and said that he was going out to get the heroin. He left the apartment, came back about midnight, and Latta in court identified him as the person who handed Latta some white powder that proved to be heroin. Latta said that the accused was dressed in “sports clothes, slacks and a jacket and a hat.” The other witness, Lubert, met Latta with a woman close by the building into which Latta went. He stood outside, and after about two hours the accused came out, hailed a taxicab and went to a theatre on 118th Street and Seventh Avenue. About three-quarters of an hour later he came out, took another cab, went to a bar, came out, took a third cab and drove back to the apartment whence he came out originally. Later Latta came out and gave Lubert the heroin. Lubert described the dress of the accused as “a rust colored Eisenhower or suede jacket, one of those short jackets.” Upon this testimony Judge Weinfeld found that the man who sold the heroin to Latta was the defendant, relying upon the testimony of Lat-ta “as corroborated by the other agent.”
' We reaffirm what we held in United States v. Costello, 2 Cir., 1955, 221 F.2d 668, 671, and had indeed often said before; that “in all criminal prosecutions, the prosecution makes out a sufficient case to go to the jury, if the evidence would have been enough in a civil action; the only difference between the two is that in the end the evidence must satisfy the jury beyond any reasonable doubt.” See also United States v. Gonzales Castro, 2 Cir., 1956, 228 F.2d 807. This doctrine is certainly as applicable to cases tried to a judge upon waiver of a jury; for the waiver substitutes the judge for the jury in all respects. The accused must therefore be content with such protection as is afforded by the requirement that the finding presupposes the judge’s conclusion that the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
The appellant further argues that the two findings made by Judge Weinfeld in compliance with Fed.RuIes Criminal Procedure, Rule 23(c), 18 U.S.C.A., were inconsistent, because Lu-bert’s testimony did not corroborate Lat-ta’s, as the judge declared, but conflicted with it. This is completely mistaken; the testimony of the two witnesses as to the clothes worn by the accused was not in the least inconsistent. It is true that they did not use identical terms in describing his clothes; but that is quite another matter. The “jacket” that Lat-ta observed might well have been “a rust colored Eisenhower or suede jacket, one of those short jackets.” Moreover, it accords well enough with the phrase, “sport clothes.” Besides, it was highly corroborative of Latta, that the same person came out of the building into which Latta had gone shortly before, was absent for an hour or more, went in again, and that Latta shortly thereafter came out with the heroin.
Judgment affirmed.
The court wishes to express its thanks to the appellant’s counsel for their gratuitous services on the appeal.

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