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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. PS HOTEL CORPORATION et al., Appellants.
No. 75-1342.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 1975.
Decided Dec. 31, 1975.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1976.
Henry F. Luepke, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Edwin E. Huddleson, III, Civ. Div., Appellate Section, U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MATTHES, Senior Circuit Judge, STEPHENSON and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The central issue raised in this appeal requires a determination of lien priority pursuant to either the Missouri Uniform Commercial Code or applicable principles of federal common law.
Former owners and managers of the Parkway House Airport Motor Hotel appeal from the district court’s judgment enforcing a security interest of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in various assets of the motel. Essentially, the instant case is a dispute over rights to accounts receivable, valued at $24,707.28, and food and liquor inventory, valued at $3,000.00, of the Parkway Motel. The claimants are the SBA, the assignee of a security interest in the motel’s '“accounts and inventory” under a security agreement executed on October 28, 1971, and Parkway Associates, the motel’s former owner, lessor and assignee of the motel’s “rents, issues, income and profits” under an amended lease agreement executed on September 11, 1971.
The trial court entered judgment for $27,707.28 in favor of the United States and found that appellants had converted the motel’s assets that were subject to the SBA’s security interest. First, the court held that the SBA’s perfected security interest in the motel’s accounts receivable and food and liquor inventory was entitled to prevail over Parkway Associates’ claim of ownership because the lease agreement did not encompass those types of property. Secondly, the district court found that the SBA’s perfected security agreement in the accounts receivable was entitled to priority over the amended lease agreement of Parkway Associates since the latter was not effectively filed under the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code.
We affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. United States v. PS Hotel Corporation, et al., 404 F.Supp. 1188 (E.D.Mo.1975). We are satisfied that the findings of the district court are amply supported by the record and no error of law is apparent. See Rule 14. Our resolution of this matter on the. basis of the district court’s opinion renders it unnecessary to consider appellee’s additional contention that it is entitled to priority under federal common law.
Affirmed.
. The Honorable John K. Regan, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

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: 1