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. Charles CORNISH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 73-1189.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Argued Jan. 8, 1974.
Decided Feb. 5, 1974.
William P. Homans, Jr., Boston, Mass., with whom Featherston, Homans, Kluboek & Griffin, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellant.
Lawrence P. Cohen, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom James N. Gabriel, U. S. Atty., was on brief, for appellee.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, ALDRICH and McENTEE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of conspiring to distribute a quantity of cocaine, a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 846 (1970). The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence adduced at trial to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiratorial agreement existed between appellant and his codefendant, Barbara Murchison. The evidence, which for these purposes must be considered in the light most favorable to the government, indicated that on the afternoon of July 6, 1973, one Francis Dever, an undercover agent attached to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, met with Murchison and a government informant in Boston in order to purchase cocaine. Murchison stated that she knew of a source of supply, described as a “good friend” of hers, but said that this “man would not meet with [agent Dever] with the cocaine.” Consequently, an arrangement was reached whereby the agent gave $1,000 to the informant who was to hold the money until the cocaine was delivered.
Later the same day, agent Dever observed Murchison as a passenger in a car driven by appellant. After dropping her off near a bar on Columbus Avenue in Boston, appellant continued outbound on that road, with the agent in close pursuit. At the intersection of West Springfield Street and Columbus Avenue, both vehicles stopped and appellant left his car and walked over to the passenger side of the agent’s automobile. The agent then asked appellant where the cocaine was, to which appellant replied that “it was with Miss Murchison, back on Columbus Avenue.” After being thanked by the agent, appellant responded, “Any time.”
At the conclusion of this meeting, which provides all the evidence in the record as to the appellant’s asserted participation in the conspiracy, Dever returned to the vicinity of the bar on Columbus Avenue where he had earlier seen Murchison depart from appellant’s car. After parking his vehicle, the agent joined Murchison who produced a brown paper bag containing the desired amount of cocaine. This was then given to the agent, thus completing the illicit transaction.
On these facts, we cannot say that there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knew of and participated in a conspiratorial agreement with Murchison whereby cocaine was ultimately distributed to the government agent. Admittedly the evidence is circumstantial, but that is frequently the nature of proof in a trial for conspiracy. And when we consider that Murchison had to contact her “connection” in order to acquire the cocaine; that appellant dropped Murchison off at the spot where the ultimate transfer took place; that, when followed, appellant stopped his car and deliberately went over to speak to agent Dever; and that when asked where the specific cocaine the agent wished to purchase was, appellant, who had never before seen Dever, promptly responded that “it” was back with Murchison, we do not believe that it can be fairly contended that the evidence against appellant was insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict.
The case of United States v. Hysohion, 448 F.2d 343 (2d Cir. 1971), upon which appellant primarily relies, is not dispositive of the issue before us. Even if we were to accept the dictum in the majority opinion of Hysohion, as distinguished from Judge Moore’s concurrence, the facts in that case, precluding a finding of a working relationship with the supplier, were far more favorable to the defendant.
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: 0