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:
SOCIALIST WORKERS 1974 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE et al. v. Honorable W. Pat JENNINGS, Clerk, United States House of Representatives, Office of the Secretary, Capitol Hill, et al. Appeal of FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.
No. 77-1490.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Dec. 6, 1977.
Decided Dec. 13, 1977.
Charles N. Steele, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Federal Election Commission, Washington, D. C., with whom William C. Oldaker, Gen. Counsel, Federal Election Commission, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Joel M. Gora, New York City, for appel-lees.
Before WRIGHT, McGOWAN, and WIL-KEY, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court per curiam.
PER CURIAM:
In September 1974 the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) sued certain federal officials (later succeeded by the Federal Election Commission (FEC)) to obtain anticipatory judicial relief against being prosecuted criminally and civilly under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, in violation of its First Amendment freedoms, for not disclosing contributors’ names and other information. As an ad hoc method of fact-finding devised for this case, the District Court on January 17, 1977 ordered the FEC to compile a “factual record” concerning harassment of the SWP. On motion by the SWP the court stated in an “order of clarification” on April 19, 1977 that “in complying with” its January 17th order the FEC was not to use the procedures and determinations of 2 U.S.C. § 437g. The FEC seeks to appeal the order of April 19th, contending that it is a preliminary injunction. Simultaneously, the FEC has prepared the required factual record using other procedures.
In the context of this particular suit, with its special circumstances and procedures, it is clear that the order of April 19, 1977 is not a preliminary injunction, and that this court has no jurisdiction to review it. The District Court obviously was aware of the necessity in appropriate cases to provide anticipatory judicial relief against prosecutions threatening sensitive First Amendment freedoms. The District Court’s order of January 17th was in the nature of an instruction to a master to prepare a record and findings, which order is not appealable. Teamsters Local Unions 745 v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 428 F.2d 1371, 1373 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 937, 91 S.Ct. 926, 28 L.Ed.2d 217 (1971). We fail to see how a second order, clarifying which procedures the FEC should use, or not use, in complying with the order to prepare a record, could be any more of an appealable injunctive restraint than "the first order.
Accordingly, we hold that this appeal be, and the same hereby is,
Dismissed.
. The SWP originally sued the Clerk of the U. S. House of Representatives, the Secretary of the U. S. Senate, and the Comptroller General, who were the “supervisory officers” for disclosure requirements under the Federal Election Campaign Act (hereinafter FECA) of 1971, Pub.L. No. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the FECA of 1971 was substantially amended by the FECA Amendments of 1974, Pub.L. No. 93-443, 88 Stat. 1263, and the FECA Amendments of 1976, Pub.L. No. 94-283, 90 Stat. 475. As amended, the Act made provision for civil prosecutions by the newly-created Federal Election Commission, FECA Amendments of 1976, § 109, 2 U.S.C. § 437g (Supp. 1976), and for criminal prosecutions by the Attorney General, FECA Amendments of 1976, § 112(2), 2 U.S.C. § 441j (Supp. 1976). Accordingly, in July 1976 plaintiffs amended their complaint to add the Federal Election Commission and the Attorney General as defendants. The Attorney General declared that he would not institute criminal actions during the pendency of this action and therefore, by order of January 17, 1977, the District Court granted the Attorney General’s motion for dismissal as to him.
. See Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 81 S.Ct. 247, 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958); Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F.Supp. 248 (E.D.Ark.), aff'd per curiam, 393 U.S. 14, 89 S.Ct. 47, 21 L.Ed.2d 14 (1968).
. See note 1 supra.
. Buckley v. Valeo, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 172, 219-220, 519 F.2d 821, 868 (1975), aff'd on these grounds, 424 U.S. 1, 71 & n.87, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976); Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974) (declaratory relief); Civil Service Com’n v. National Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 564, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973); Bradley v. Saxbe, 388 F.Supp. 53, 55-56 (D.D.C.1974).
. Under the FECA as amended, the FEC has broad powers to make rules, render advisory opinions, and enter into conciliation agreements barring civil and limiting criminal prosecution. FECA Amendments of 1974, § 208(a)(8), 2 U.S.C. § 437d(a)(8) (Supp. 1976); FECA Amendments of 1976, §§ 108(a), 109, 2 U.S.C. §§ 437f, g (Supp. 1976). See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 140, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976). The FEC informed the District Court that it had the power to promulgate rules creating procedures by which parties could obtain exemptions, Appellee’s Appendix at 29-30. Thus, perhaps before this litigation is over, the FEC may voluntarily or by judicial order provide exemption procedures which would eliminate the need for the court to decide some or all of the issues in this and similar cases. See Doe v. Martin, 404 F.Supp. 753 (D.D.C.1975).

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