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:
Geneva TRACY, Victoria De Lee, Anna William, Ollie Mae Utsey, Dianne Grant, by her mother and next friend, Laureen Grant, Edna De Lee, by her mother and next friend, Cora Lee De Lee, James Lemon, by his mother and next friend, Beatrice Lemon, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. Jack W. ROBBINS, individually and as Chief of Police of the Town of St. George, W. Duncan Horne, individually and as Mayor of the Town of St. George, J. Wilson Patrick, individually and as Town Attorney for the Town of St. George, and their agents, successors, employees, subordinates and attorneys, Appellees.
No. 10718.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 10, 1967.
Decided Feb. 7, 1967.
Henry M. diSuvero, New York City (Russell Brown, Charleston, S. C., and Carl Rachlin, New York City, on brief), for appellants.
Nathaniel L. Barnwell, Charleston, S. C. (Legare Walker, Jr., Sidney B. Jones, Jr., Summerville, S. C., Ben Scott Whaley, Charleston, S. C., Walker, Walker & Jenkins, Summerville, S. C., and Barn-well, Whaley, Stevenson & Patterson, Charleston, S. C., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, BRYAN, Circuit Judge, and KAUFMAN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This proceeding was commenced for the vindication of alleged rights under the First Amendment. It was an aftermath of the arrest and prosecution of some pickets and demonstrators in the public streets of St. George, South Carolina. The defendants are the Mayor of the Town of St. George who, in his capacity as municipal judge, presided at the trials of the arrested pickets, the Town Attorney, who acted as prosecutor in those proceedings, and the Chief of Police who, individually or through subordinates, effected the arrests. Injunctive relief and damages were sought.
The District Court dismissed the complaint as to the Mayor and the Town Attorney. The dismissal was on the ground of judicial immunity, but the order left in the case the Chief of Police and incorporated leave to amend the complaint.
This appeal by the plaintiffs from the order dismissing the complaint as to the Mayor of the Town and its Attorney is premature. It is not a final order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291, for the action may proceed against the Chief of Police, and, for all that now appears, all the relief to which the plaintiffs may be entitled may be granted and made effective though the Chief of Police is the only remaining defendant. There Is no appeal from any order denying an injunction which might be allowable under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292 (a) , nor is there any contention that the order dismissing the Mayor and the Town Attorney involves a controlling question of law, which would allow a permissive appeal under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292 (b) , provided the requisite certification of the District Judge were present. There has been no determination by the District Judge that there is no just reason for delay and express direction of the entry of a final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order has not been made final under that rule, and the conditions for allowance of an appeal from an interlocutory order have not been met.
The appeal will be dismissed as premature. Under Rule 54(b), the Mayor and Town Attorney will remain subject to the orders of the Court and, upon entry of a final order, the propriety of the order dismissing the complaint as to them will be subject to appellate review.
We assume that the taking of this appeal will toll the running of the time allowed by the District Judge for an amendment of the complaint. The dismissal of the appeal, of course, is without prejudice to any subsequent appeal which may be taken under either § 1291 or § 1292.
Appeal 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