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 v. BARTON.
No. 9315.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb. 10, 1941.
George Earl Hoffman, U. S. Atty., of Pensacola, Fla., for appellant.
Wm. Joe Sears, Jr., of Jackonsville, Fla., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and Mc-CORD, Circuit Judges.
HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
Henry Barton was issued a policy of war risk insurance during his military service in 1918. In 1925, he converted it' into a twenty-year endowment policy of Government life insurance in the amount of $5,000. This contract was kept in force until January 1, 1936, when Barton claimed to have become totally and permanently disabled. This appeal presents questions involving the propriety of certain proceedings on the trial and the correctness of the court’s denial of the Government’s motion for a dirécted verdict.
If, when all the evidence was construed most favorably to Barton, there was any substantial evidence upon which the 'jury might properly have found for him, the motion for a directed verdict was properly denied. Viewing the evidence in accordance with this rule, the proof clearly made out a case for jury determination. During several years preceding 1933, Barton,pursued various occupations, principally clerical. In the summer of 1933, he quit his work in a general store, because the onset of various ailments considerably impaired his health. Since that time, Barton has followed no occupation other than speculating or investing in the stock market.
On January 1, 1936, when the disability was claimed to exist, the appellee was suffering from chronic bronchitis, bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis, under nutrition, functional neurosis, chronic spastic colitis, hemorrhoids, secondary anemia, myopia, and decayed teeth. Shortly thereafter, he was discovered to have paralysis agitans, with which he was afflicted on January 1, 1936, and which was recognized to be an incurable disease. Two qualified physicians testified that Barton’s condition was such that any attempt by him regularly to follow any gainful occupation would result in injury to his health, and that his condition, which had steadily grown worse for five years, would continue so to do. Lay witnesses closely acquainted with Barton testified that these illnesses noticeably reacted adversely upon his health. Taking the evidence at its best for the plaintiff, certainly the jury could properly find that Barton was totally and permanently disabled on the date claimed.
Procedural errors occurring in the trial of a suit are not sufficient to require a reversal unless the appellate court is of the opinion that such errors affected the substantial rights of the parties. We are not satisfied that any of the errors complained of seriously prejudiced the appellant or induced a clearly erroneous verdict. The procedural improprieties complained of were not serious in their most violent form, and each of them was mitigated into harmlessness by corrective action taken before the submission of the cause.
Affirmed.
Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 50 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed. 720; United States v. Fancher, 5 Cir., 84 F.2d 306; Thomas v. United States, 5 Cir., 92 F.2d 929; Southern Steamship Co. v. Meyners, 5 Cir., 110 F.2d 376; Commercial Casualty Co. v. Stinson, 6 Cir., 111 F.2d 63, 64; Farris et al. v. Interstate Circuit, Inc., 5 Cir., Jan. 3, 1941, 116 F.2d 409.
Thomas v. United States, supra; United States v. Martin, 5 Cir., 54 F.2d 554; Keelen v. United States, 5 Cir., 65 F.2d 513.
28 U.S.C.A. § 391; Gilmer v. Higley, 110 U.S. 47, 3 S.Ct. 471, 28 L.Ed. 62; Seaboard Airline Ry. v. Moore, 228 U.S. 433, 33 S.Ct. 580, 57 L.Ed. 907; Morris Land & Cattle Co. v. Kilpatrick, 5 Cir., 256 F. 788.

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