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:
KIRBY v. UNITED STATES.
No. 13432.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
March 28, 1947.
Nelson Abraham, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Sam M. Wear, U. S. Atty., and David A. Thompson, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, .and JOHN SEN, Circuit Judges.
SANBORN, Circuit Judge.
The appellant was indicted for transporting a woman by automobile from Kansas City, Missouri, to Clay Center, Kansas, in January, 1946, with intent to induce her to have illicit sexual relations with him. See Sections 398 and 400 of Title 18, U.S. C.A. He entered a plea of not guilty, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for four years. By this appeal he •challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, the admissibility of certain evidence, and the propriety of remarks, made by the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument to the jury.
The facts out of which this case arose are largely undisputed. The appellant was a young man without money or employment, who had been married but believed himself to be divorced. On January 13, 1946, in Kansas City, Missouri, he became acquainted with a fifteen year old girl, who was living with her parents. By a promise of marriage, he induced her to go with him that night, by automobile, to Clay Center, Kansas. He there registered her as his wife at a hotel and had illicit relations with her. After staying with her two nights at Clay Center, he sold his automobile to obtain funds, and took her to Denver, Colorado. On January 18, 1946, he told her he would not marry her and that she could stay with him or go home. She went home.
The appellant’s defense was that when he left Kansas City with the girl he intended to marry her and did not change his mind until he «reached Denver. The government’s evidence unquestionably tended to prove that he never intended to marry the girl; that the promise of marriage was made only after she had rejected improper proposals made by him; that he had no money; that he stole gasoline in order to make the trip to Clay Center; that he made no move to marry the girl after selling his automobile; and that immediately after their separation in Denver, he took another' woman to his room for immoral purposes. His conduct, acts and admissions, as disclosed by the evidence, were inconsistent with his assertion that he transported the girl with intent to marry her. The jury was justified in believing that his intentions, when he left Kansas City, were to treat the girl exactly as he did treat her.
The appellant complains of the admission of evidence that he stole gasoline for the trip, and that after ridding himself of the girl in Denver he took another woman to his room. This evidence bore upon the question of his intent. A man honestly contemplating marriage does not ordinarily elope when penniless, steal gasoline for his wedding trip, have relations with his prospective wife before marriage, nor substitute an immoral woman for her upon breaking the engagement. Compare Ellis v. United States, 8 Cir., 138 F.2d 612, 614.
There is no merit in the appellant’s contention that the prosecuting attorney was guilty of misconduct in his closing argument to the jury, and the remarks of which the appellant now complains were not obj ected to at the trial.
It is probably true, as the government asserts, that the appellant failed to take his appeal in time. Under the circumstances of this case, we have resolved any possible doubts as to our jurisdiction in favor of the appellant. Óur conclusion is that he had a fair trial and that the sentence imposed is a lawful sentence.
■ The judgment appealed from is 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: 0