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:
CONTINENTAL NAT. BANK OF JACKSON COUNTY et al. v. HOLLAND BANKING CO. et al.
No. 9004.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
May 16, 1931.
George L. Edwards, of Kansas City, Mo. (Bowersock, Fizzell & Rhodes, Henry L. Jost, Ryland, Stinson, Mag & Thomson, and Omar E. Robinson, all of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellants.
H. G. Leedy, of Kansas City, Mo. (Roscoe C. Patterson, of Kansas City, Mo., and Orin Patterson and Farrington & Curtis, all of Springfield, Mo., on the brief), for appellees.
Before STONE and GARDNER, Circuit Judges, and WOODROUGH, District Judge.
WOODROUGH, District Judge.
This appeal is taken to reverse an order of the trial court appointing receiver for the Continental National Bank. The order was made in a suit brought by a judgment creditor of the bank in the nature of a creditor’s bill to enforce the judgment against the bank’s assets and to recover against the shareholders on their liability for any deficiency. The bank had discontinued its ordinary business and turned its assets over to a committee of its own shareholders for voluntary liquidation before the plaintiff’s judgment was obtained, and the members of the committee as well as the bank and its shareholders were all made parties defendant in the bill. The application for the appointment of receiver was heard upon the verified bill and the objections to the appointment of receiver, and there was some colloquy between the court and counsel. the application for the appointment of receiver has been certified to us by the trial judge.
It appeared to the trial judge from the pleadings and the admissions of the parties that the plaintiff had a judgment against the bank from which the bank had appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, and that court had affirmed the judgment; that the assets in the hands of the shareholders’ committee were insufficient to pay the judgment and interest; that the directors of the bank and the liquidating committee were denying the validity of the judgment and refusing to recognize it, and some assets of the bank had been liquidated and paid to shareholders with full knowledge of the existence of the plaintiff’s claims. There were strenuous denials that the shareholders’ committee had been guilty of any mismanagement of their trust, and it was urged that they were the ones best qualified to carry out the liquidation. A principal contention was further that the judgment of the plaintiff had been obtained by fraud and was void.
We think the trial court in passing upon the propriety of appointing receiver rightly indulged the presumption that the plaintiff’s judgment was valid [Brictson Mfg. Co. v. Close (C. C. A.) 25 F.(2d) 794], that it rightly considered the bank’s liquidating eom- ' mittee to be in the position of trustees for the creditors, and that the action of the committee in liquidating assets and paying dividends to shareholders when the assets were insufficient to pay the judgment and interest justified appointing a receiver. The order to impound the bank’s assets in the hands of receiver pendente lite was clearly within the court’s jurisdiction and in the exercise of sound discretion. Adequate security was exacted, and there was no error.
After receiver was appointed, the defendant bank and its liquidating committee objected to the person selected on the ground of interest. The court stated he would defer consideration of that objection until determination of this appeal. It appears that Mr. John E. Cahill, named by the court to be receiver, is a deputy finance commissioner of the state of Missouri in charge of liquidation of the judgment creditor plaintiff, and is identified with and assisting the plaintiff in this litigation.' It would seem, therefore, that in his official position he has an interest in the litigation, and that some other suitable and wholly disinterested person should be appointed by the trial court.
Order for receiver 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: 99