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:
COOK v. DOUGHERTY et al.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted April 1, 1929.
Decided May 6, 1929.
No. 4731.
Alva O. Hearne and R. E. Lambert, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Wm. W. Bride and W. H. Wahly, both of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
This appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia overruling the petition of the appellant to vacate and set aside the verdict of the jury of inquisition and the order of the court concerning the same entered on the 28th day of March, 1924, in which appellant was adjudged to be of unsound mind and committed to Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital for the Insane.
The proceeding amounts to a collateral attack upon the judgment, and invokes the jurisdiction of the court to vacate and set aside the judgment confirming the verdict of the jury without bringing to the attention of the eourt the evidence adduced at the trial on which the verdict was based. In the absence of the evidence, it will be presumed that it was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereon. The learned trial justice, disposing of the ease, said: “The court is of opinion that the regularity of the proceedings should be presumed; as well, also, that it should be presumed that there was testimony in the case tending to support the jurisdictional aver-ments found in the petition for the writ de lunático to the effect that the respondent, in addition to being of unsound mind, had tendencies dangerous either to herself or others; and, a fortiori, should such presumption be indulged in as against a collateral attack subsequently made.”
It is further asserted that the notice served upon appellant in the lunacy proceedings was insufficient and void. It appears, however, that appellant appeared and was present at the proceedings, which constitutes a waiver of any defect in the notice.
As further bearing on the insufficiency of plaintiff’s petition to invoke the jurisdiction sought, it may be suggested that while a decree of insanity may be inquired into at any time for the purpose of determining whether or 'not the person has become sane, the petition to vacate in the present ease contains no suggestion of present sanity, nor is any such contention made in the ease.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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