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:
R. B. RIVERS, doing business as Rivers Navigation Co., Appellant, v. IDAHO POWER COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.
No. 16929.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 24, 1962.
William R. Padgett, Boise, Idaho, for appellant.
Clements & Clements, Lewiston, Idaho, Parry, Robertson & Daly, Twin Falls, Idaho, and James E. Bruce, Boise, Idaho, for appellee.
Before ORR, CHAMBERS and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge.
Rivers carries the mail as a private contractor for the United States government for a distance of 87 miles by boat up the Snake River from Lewiston, Idaho, to Johnson’s Bar. Idaho Power, pursuant to a license issued in 1955 from the Federal Power Commission, has built three power dams above Johnson’s Bar on the Snake which impound water to discharge and make power. Obviously, the flow of the stream below the dams has been affected.
Rivers, plaintiff and appellant, claims that the reduction of the normal flow of the Snake has caused and will cause him great damage in his navigation of the stream with his boat during the five year period of his mail contract, commencing July 1, 1958.
The court granted Idaho Power’s motion to dismiss and its motion for summary judgment. We hold the judgment entered thereon was correct.
It is apparent Idaho Power’s license for the three dams, a subject of great controversy at the time, was granted almost three years prior to Rivers’ mail contract, the date of the latter in 1958 being the date of his commencement to be an owner of a business on the river.
Rivers did not plead that Idaho Power had failed to release the amount of water it was required under its federal power license to release, only that Idaho Power “caused a reduction of the normal flow of the waters of the Snake River * If he could have so pleaded and had done so, the question might be more difficult.
We have examined the cases cited by both parties. We are convinced that whatever riparian rights may exist in Idaho, Rivers had none. As a general member of the public he took his subsequent mail contract subject to whatever the federal power license had done to the Snake River.
We affirm on the authority of Schodde v. Twin Falls Land and Water Co., 9 Cir., 161 F. 43; 224 U.S. 107, 32 S.Ct. 470, 56 L.Ed. 686, and Johnson v. Utah Power & Light Company, 9 Cir., 215 F.2d 814, the two cases relied upon by the district court.
At oral argument this court questioned federal jurisdiction. After examining the briefs of the parties, the court is satisfied this was a “federal case.” It believes its earlier doubts as to jurisdiction were simply doubts as to the claim stated.
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: 1