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:
GUARDIAN TRUST CO. v. STICKLE.
No. 6133.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 17, 1933.
. F. K. Pickering, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
E. E. Stearns, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.
Before MOORMAN, HICKENLOOPER, and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.
HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judge. .
On October 7,1930-, the Alliance First National Bank placed an. order with the Cleveland office of Prince & Whitely, stockbrokers, to sell 20 shares of Congoleum-Naim, Inc., common stock, and 25 sharers of Boi’den Company capital stock, at designated prices. The order was executed the same day, and settlement was made by the brokers on October 8th by the delivery of an equal number of like shares of their own and receipt of the purchase price. The bank was advised promptly of the execution of the order, and thereupoir' drew a sight draft upon -Prince & Whitely for the avails of the sale, attached certificates representing the shares sold, and forwarded the draft to the appellant for collection and deposit." ''
. ¡ Upon presentation of the draft, appellant received a check drawn to its order upon the' Equitable Trust Company of New York, and delivered the attached certificates. This was between 9:30 and 10 a. m. on October 9,1930. Later, on the same day, an involuntary petition in bankruptcy was filed against Prince & Whitely. There were sufficient funds in the Equitable Trust Company to pay the check when it was delivered, but the filing of the bankruptcy petition necessarily resulted in payment being refused when the check was cleared in the due course of business. The appellant thereupon filed a petition for reclamation of the stock, which petition was denied. The present appeal-followed.
We are of the opinion that the order of the District Court should be affirmed. Compare In re A. O. Brown & Co., 189 F. 432 (D. C. N. Y.). The facts of the case at bar do not disclose a sale “for cash.” Upon execution of the bank’s order, the bank became obligated tot deliver certificates for shares of stock to the amounts and of the kinds sold. It was in the performance of this obligation that the Alliance First National Bank forwarded the certificates in question, adopting a common business expedient or means for making such delivery and collecting the proceeds of the sale, the latter to be deposited in its banking account with appellant. Whether appellant exceeded its authority as agent in delivering the certificates, except upon the receipt of cash, we need not determine. The receipt of a cheek was in a true sense the extension of credit to Prince & Whitely by appellant, upon its cm responsibility, and could give rise to no equities, attaching to the stock, in the absence of that which, in fact or in law, amounted to fraud ab initio. No' such facts exist in the present case.
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: 1