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:
Robert L. MELVILLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 71-2004.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 28, 1972.
Raymond T. Sawyer, III, Thompson, Hiñe & Flory, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.
John L. Dowling, Asst. Pros. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellee; John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, Ohio, on brief.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, KENT, Circuit Judge, and O’SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the dismissal of the plaintiff’s (the parties will be referred to as in the court below) complaint challenging the charter provisions of the City of Rocky River, Ohio, which require that the Mayor of the City shall have been a qualified elector and resident for at least three years prior to the date of his election. The complaint recites that on August 4, 1971, Ira N. For-man (Forman), age 19, a resident of Rocky River for more than three years, but a qualified elector for less than three years, filed a declaration of his candidacy for the office of Mayor of Rocky River in the Democratic Primary Election scheduled for September, 1971. He had complied with the charter provisions relating to the necessity for signatures. On August 6, the Board of Elections advised Forman that his name would not be on the ballot because he had not been a qualified elector for three years.
Plaintiff filed this action claiming that the provisions of the charter of the City of Rocky River requiring that a candidate must have been an elector for three years before election violated his Civil Rights and the Equal Protection Clause contained in Amendment 14 to the Constitution of the United States because he was denied the right to vote for the candidate of his choice. The action was dismissed by the District Court by an order entered September 9, 1971.
At the time of the argument of the case in this Court it was conceded by counsel for the plaintiff that the primary and general elections for 1971 had been held (without the benefit of For-man’s candidacy). The prayer for relief of the complaint did not request a declaratory judgment, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201, but requested an injunction to restrain the enforcement of the electorship requirement and to require that Forman be reinstated as a candidate on the Democratic Primary ballot for the office of Mayor of Rocky River. At the time of the hearing in the District Court counsel for the plaintiff stated to the District Judge that Forman was enrolled as a sophomore at Harvard University: On these facts and because of the limited nature of the prayer for relief in the complaint, this Court concludes that the issues presented in this cause are moot.
The appeal is dismissed.

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