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:
John M. RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Earl HUDDLESTON, John Sloan and Frank Summers, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15368.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 14, 1964.
Douglas E. Robertson, Bowling Green, Cancan & Allender, Bowling Green, Ky., on brief), for appellant.
Paul R- Huddleston, Bowling Green, Ky. (Huddleston & Huddleston, Bowling Green, Ky., on brief), for appellees.
Before O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, and McALLISTER and MAGRUDER, Senior Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
. „ . T M t> , n Appellant, John M. Ray, sued appellee a county judge of the county of Clinton, Yr x , . n , . , , Kentucky, had invaded Ray's civil rights- , . . . t> j? , , by imprisoning Ray for contempt of Justifies his nresenee in the Federal CQurtg b asserting that the Rights Statutes (§§ 1983, 1985, U.S.C.A. Title 42; § 1343, U.S.C.A. Title 28) permit him to come here.
UPon tnal of the cause> a verdict was' directed in favor of defendant Huddleston, and judgment entered thereon. Ray . „ . . , asks for a new trial.
Ray had been acting as the Administrator of the Clinton County War Memorial Hospital. By action of the Clinton County Fiscal Court, Ray’s position as such was to be terminated on February 2, 1962. He disputed the validity of such action. When Ray’s successor sought to take over the office and authority of administrator of the hospital, Ray resisted. His resistance was not limited to written or verbal protest. On the day his successor was to take over, Ray arrived at his previous post of duty ready to hold it against intrusion by his successor. He proceeded to do so. Confusion in the administration of the hospital ensued and its good order and the welfare of its patients were seriously impaired. Described events could, and probably did, amount to a breach of the peace. This condition continued for some days.
Through official sources, reports of this situation came to Earl Huddleston, as judge of the County Court of Clinton County. Acting under § 25.150 of Kentucky Revised Statutes and under Section 32 of the Kentucky Code of Practice in Criminal Cases, Judge Huddleston, on February 7, 1962, convened a court of inquiry and summoned Ray to appear. Ray appeared with counsel and, on this appeal, it is not disputed that, by demeanor and words, he publicly displayed his contempt for the authority and person of Judge Huddleston. Ray was summarily committed to jail for six hours. On this appeal, appellant’s attack on the action of the county judge is his contention that the judge was without jurisdiction to conduct the court of inquiry and, therefore, was without authority to punish Ray for contempt. We are of the opinion that the county judge had authority to convene and conduct the court of inquiry and, incident thereto, to impose punishment for contemptuous conduct committed in his presence. Bryant v. Crossland (Ky. 1918), 182 Ky. 556, 206 S.W. 791. Cf. Johnson v. MacCoy, 278 F.2d 37 (CA 9, 1960).
A more detailed discussion of the facts and issues involved in the case before us will be found in the opinion of District Judge Mac Swinford denying Ray’s motion for new trial. The opinion is reported as Ray v. Huddleston, 212 F.Supp. 343. (W.D.Ky.1963) We agree, also, with that opinion’s holding that judicial immunity foreclosed a judgment of liability against appellee Huddleston for his conduct of the proceedings of the court of inquiry.
Judgment affirmed.
. KRS 25.150 provides: “The county judge is a conservator of the peace within his county, may administer oaths and may exercise all the power of a justice in penal and criminal proceedings, and singly hold a court of inquiry in such proceedings.”
. Criminal Code § 32 provides: “A magistrate, if satisfied that any public offense has been committed,- shall have power to summon before him any person he may think proper for examination on oath concerning it, to enable him to ascertain the offender, and to issue a warrant for his ' arrest.”

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