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:
GRAY & BARASH, Inc., v. LUCKENBACH S. S. CO. et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 12, 1925.)
No. 4404.
Appeal and error <©=»1011 (I) — Findings on conflicting testimony not disturbed.
Findings of trial court on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal, except for plain and manifest error.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington; Jeremiah Neterer, Judge.
Libel by Gray & Barash, Tne., against the Luekenbach Steamship Company, wherein the International Stevedoring Company was brought in as party defendant on petition of the Steamship Company. From a decree dismissing the libel, libelant appeals.
Affirmed.
Palmer & Askran and Murphy & Kumm, all of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
Chas. F. Munday, of Seattle, Wash., for appellee International Stevedoring Co.
Bronson, Robinson & Jones, of Seattle, Wash., and Andros, Hengstler & Dorr, of San Francisco, Cal., fqr appellee Luekenbach S. S. Co.
Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and MeCAMANT, Circuit Judges.
RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a libel in admiralty. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :
In October, 1922, the appellant purchased one 1,250-kilowatt General Electric steam turbo generator and base from the Tiffany FJeetrie Company, of New Haven, Conn. It then arranged with the respondent, Luekenbach Steamship Company, to carry the generator and base by water from the port of Philadelphia to the port of Seattle. The generator and base were incased in a substantial wooden crate, and for the purpose of handling and loading the seller, at the instance of the buyer, placed two substantial wire cables around the crate, of sufficient strength to lift and handle it. These cables were fastened by lapping and doubling back and fastening the ends by means of U-shaped clamps. The clamps were threaded on the end, and the cable held in place and tightened by means of nuts screwed down over a movable bar. The erato was loaded onto the train at New Haven, and removed from the train to the dock, and from the dock to the vessel at Philadelphia, by means of these cables. Upon arrival of the vessel at Seattle, the cables were again used by the stevedoring company in unloading from the vessel, but when the crate was raised to a distance of about 10 feet from the hold one of the cables slipped through the clamp and the crate fell to the bottom of the vessel, causing damage to the amount of upwards of $3,000.
The appellant thereupon filed its libel against the steamship company to recover the damages thus sustained, charging two grounds of negligence: First, failure and neglect to use safe and sufficient appliances; and, second, failure and neglect to tighten the clamps used in fastening the cables and to keep them tight. The stevedoring company was later brought in on petition of the steamship company. On the final hearing the court below found that the cables placed around the crate containing the generator and base were used in unloading at Seattle at the instance and request of the appellant, and that the stevedoring company exercised due care and caution in their use. These findings are supported by competent testimony, and the rule is universal that findings of the trial court, based on conflicting testimony taken in open court, will not be disturbed on appeal, except for plain and manifest error.
A careful examination of the record in this case discloses no such error, and the decree is therefore- 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