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:
David S. ASHBY-BEY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Edwin MEESE III, Attorney General, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
No. 85-1003.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued Nov. 3, 1986.
Decided June 4, 1987.
Debra Ingraham, Law Student, Loyola Univ. Law School, Chicago, 111., for petitioner-appellee.
Mark E. Nagle, Asst. U.S. Atty., District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., for respondents-appellants.
Before CUMMINGS and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges, and MAROVITZ, Senior District Judge.
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 43(c)(1), on this Court’s own motion we substitute Edwin Meese III, Attorney General, for William French Smith, former Attorney General.
The Honorable Abraham Lincoln Marovitz, Senior District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, is sitting by designation.
CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge.
Today we have held in the companion case of Johnson v. Williford, 821 F.2d 1279 (7th Cir. 1987), that the United States Parole Commission (“U.S. Commission”) is empowered by D.C.Code § 24-209 to determine whether to release on parole District of Columbia Code offenders (“D.C.Code offenders”) held in federal prisons, but under that statute must apply District of Columbia parole laws and regulations when making such determinations. Act of June 5, 1934, ch. 391, 48 Stat. 880 (codified at D.C. Code § 24-209). Petitioner David S. Ash-by-Bey (“Ashby-Bey”) is a D.C.Code offender and was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois (“Marion”) at the time he filed pro se this habeas corpus petition raising the same issues decided today in Johnson. AshbyBey’s petition was granted by Magistrate Kenneth J. Meyers, and. Ashby-Bey was transferred to the District of Columbia for a parole hearing in January of 1985. Parole was denied at that time and we are advised by his counsel for this appeal that he was transferred back to Marion to continue serving his sentence.
The magistrate granted Ashby-Bey’s petition based on his reasoning in Drakeford v. United States Parole Commission, 83 C 4210 (S.D.Ill. May 24, 1984), opinion amended (S.D.Ill. July 15, 1984), vacated and dismissed as moot by unpublished order, Nos. 84-2295 and 84-2340 [799 F.2d 753 (table)] (7th Cir. Aug. 27,1986). Even if we assume that Drakeford correctly decided that only prisoners convicted in federal district courts are included in the term “federal prisoners” and because of that Ashby-Bey would not be an “eligible prisoner,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 4201(4), and thus would fall outside the U.S. Commission’s statutory authority under 18 U.S.C. § 4203(b)(1), which is limited to “eligible prisoners,” our conclusion that the U.S. Commission has authority to decide Ashby-Bey’s case is unaffected. That statutory authority is derived from the Congressional grant of power found in D.C.Code § 24-209 and does not depend on whether Ashby-Bey is within the definition of the term “federal prisoner.” Furthermore, D.C.Code § 24-209 applies to all persons convicted of a D.C.Code violation and held in federal prisons, no matter whether they were convicted in the District of Columbia Superior Court or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As in Johnson, the issues are whether § 24-209 applies to the U.S. Commission and remains in effect and whether § 24-209 requires the U.S. Commission to use D.C. parole laws and regulations for D.C.Code offenders.
On the basis of Johnson, we hold that the magistrate erred in ruling that the U.S. Commission lacked statutory authority to decide Ashby-Bey’s suitability for release on parole. Ashby-Bey was convicted in the District of Columbia Superior Court for a D.C.Code offense, rather than in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, as Johnson was for a D.C.Code offense. This distinction does not change the conclusion reached in Johnson that D.C.Code § 24-209 applies to the U.S. Commission and was not repealed by implication by either the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-358, 84 Stat. 473, or the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Pub.L. No. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774 (1973). Thus the U.S. Commission continues to have “the same power and authority” over D.C.Code offenders as the D.C. Parole Board would have if those prisoners were held in a D.C. prison. That part of AshbyBey’s petition seeking to require the U.S. Commission to apply D.C. parole laws and regulations is granted for the reasons stated in Johnson.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

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