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 ex rel. HACK v. CLARK, U. S. Atty. Gen., et al.
No. 9165.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Feb. 11, 1947.
Harold O. Mulks, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
J. Albert Woll, U. S. Atty., and John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
Before EVANS, KEENER, and MIN-TON, Circuit Judges.
MINTON, Circuit Judge.
The Attorney General of the United States has ordered the relator deported to Germany as an enemy alien whose pres^ ence here is dangerous to the public peace and safety, and he is now in the custody of Andrew Jordan, District Director of the Chicago District, the United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service. The relator has brought a proceeding in habeas corpus to be released from said custody, in which petition it appears that he was born in Germany on November 7, 1899, that he left the port of Hamburg, Germany on December 6, 1923 and entered the port of New York on December 20, 1923, and that he has never become a naturalized citizen of the United States. The District Court has sustained the motion of the respondent Jordan to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and the relator has appealed.
The relator alleges in his petition:
1. That he has been denied a hearing according to the principles of due process of law.
2. That the President of the United States could not delegate to the Attorney General the duty of determining, pursuant to 50 U.S.C.A. § 21, whether the relator was dangerous to the public peace and safety of the United States.
3. That hostilities having ceased between the United States and Germany and the sovereign state of Germany having been completely subjected by opposing powers, the state of Germany no longer exists to which he may be deported or of which he may claim to be a citizen, subject, or denizen.
4. That the Attorney General may not authorize citizens who are not officers of the United States to hold hearings to determine whether the relator shall, first, be confined to a detention camp, and secondly, be repatriated to the country from whence he came, the result of said hearing to be used by the Attorney General in an advisory manner.
All of these questions have been answered contrary to the relator’s contentions. United States ex rel. Knauer v. Jordan, 7 Cir., 158 F.2d 337; Citizens Protective League v. Clark, App.D.C., 155 F.2d 290; United States ex rel. Schwarzkopf v. Uhl, 2 Cir., 137 F.2d 898, 900; United States ex rel. Schlueter v. Watkins, D.C., 67 F.Supp. 556, affirmed 2 Cir., 158 F.2d 853.
In a proceeding of this kind but one question is open to the relator, and that is whether he is an enemy alien. United States ex rel. Schwarzkopf v. Uhl, supra. If he is, that ends the proceeding. He may not contest in the courts of the host nation when or under what circumstances he, an enemy alien, shall be ordered to depart. Whether the country from whence he came is still at war with the United States or is still in existence as a sovereign power is not for any court to say; that is a political question to be answered only by those branches of our. Government charged with the responsibility of political decisions, namely, the executive and legislative branches. Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 11 S.Ct. 80, 34 L.Ed. 691; Citizens Protective League v. Clark, supra.
The District Court committed no error in dismissing the relator’s petition in habeas corpus, and the judgment is
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