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:
SHICK v. GOODMAN.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
March 19, 1929.
Rehearing Denied May 13, 1929.
No. 3822.
Robert P. Shiek, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Ellwood H. Deysher, of Reading, Pa., for appellee. "
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAYIS, Circuit Judges.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
Prior to the bankruptcy of Albright, he wished to sell some real estate. It was subject to the lien of judgments owned by Shiek, the validity of which were contested by Albright. Accordingly they agreed that the land be sold by Al-bright, that Shiek release the lien of his judgments, sufficient of the purchase money, placed in escrow in the Norristown Trust Company, and substituted for the land. That fund is the subject-matter in dispute in the present case. Within four months thereafter Albright was adjudged a bankrupt, and the rights and status of all parties were thereby fixed, as follows: First, the bankrupt estate had a vested but contingent interest in the fund in the trust company, for if Shiek’s judgments were not valid it would go to Al-bright’s trustee; second, Shiek had an interest in the fund, adverse to the bankrupt and his estate, contingent upon the validity of his judgments. Now whatever rights Shiek might have asserted to have his adverse claim decided elsewhere, he chose to submit them to the bankruptcy court by filing claims of his judgments and taking part in the consideration of their validity by that court. He asserted or invoked no right as an adverse claimant to have such validity decided elsewhere, and while he made objections from time to time to the course of procedure, he did not challenge the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court as such. Accordingly, that court proceeded and held his judgments invalid. Shiek’s attempt, pending such adjudication, to go into the state'court, where his judgments were entered, and have that court determine their validity, and as a result the validity of the claims he had filed and litigated in the bankruptcy court, was unwarranted.
We find no error in the court below enjoining him from so doing. Its decree is therefore 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: 99