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:
RELIABLE TRANSFER CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 540, 803, Dockets 73-1513, 73-2325.
Sept. Term, 1973
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 1975.
Decided July 31, 1975.
Herbert B. Halberg, New York City (Krisel, Beck & Halberg, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee and cross-appellant Reliable Transfer Co., Inc.
Janis G. Schulmeisters, Atty., Admir. & Ship. Section, Dept, of Justice, New York City (Harlington Wood, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Robert A. Morse, U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., and Gilbert S. Fleischer, Atty. in Charge, Admir. & Ship. Section, Dept, of Justice, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant and cross-appellee United States.
Before LUMBARD, FRIENDLY and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Supreme Court, in its opinion of May 19, 1975, 421 U.S. 397 vacated our judgment of May 23, 1974, 497 F.2d 1036, and remanded the case to us for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.
In our earlier opinion, we affirmed a judgment entered February 13, 1973 in the Eastern District of New York, Orrin G. Judd, District Judge, which held (1) that the stranding of the tanker, the Mary A. Whalen, on a jetty near the Rockaway Point breakwater on the evening of December 23, 1968 was caused 25% by the negligence of the United States (the Coast Guard) in its failure properly to maintain the breakwater light and 75% by the negligence of the vessel in making a U-turn in a dangerous channel when her captain knew that the breakwater light was not operating; and (2) that, under then controlling law which required equal division of property damages in admiralty where both parties were at fault, plaintiff vessel owner was entitled to recover $54,-270.83, which was one-half of the $108,-541.66 damages it had sustained. No costs were allowed on the cross-appeals in our Court.
Only the United States petitioned for certiorari, which was granted. 419 U.S. 1018. The sole issue presented was whether the admiralty rule of equally divided damages should be replaced by the rule of damages in proportion to fault.
Since the vessel owner did not cross-petition for certiorari, the findings of the district court and of our Court with respect to the proportion of comparative negligence between the parties were not open to review by the Supreme Court, and it expressly so held. 421 U.S. at 401 n.2.
On the sole issue presented, the Supreme Court overruled the century old admiralty rule of equal division of property damages and held, to the extent here applicable, that liability for the damages resulting from the stranding of the Mary A. Whalen should be allocated among the parties proportionately to the comparative degree of their fault. The Supreme Court thus put its imprimatur on the views of our late colleague, Judge Learned Hand, expressed for many years, frequently in dissent. See Ulster Oil Transport Corp. v. The Matton No. 20, 210 F.2d 106, 110 (2 Cir. 1954); National Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. United States, 183 F.2d 405, 410 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 865 (1950); Oriental Trading & Transp. Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 173 F.2d 108, 111 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 919 (1949).
Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s remand, we entered an order on June 18, 1975 vacating our judgment of May 23, 1974. We now remand the case to the district court with instructions to modify its judgment by providing that plaintiff vessel owner shall recover 25% of the damages it sustained. No costs in this Court.
Remanded with instructions.

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