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:
HOERNER WALDORF PAN AMERICAN BAG CO., INC., Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, Respondent, Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, Co-Respondent.
No. 79-1527.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 1979.
Decided Jan. 15, 1980.
Carin A. Clauss, Sol. of Labor, Benjamin W. Mintz, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C., for Occupational Safety and Health.
Allen H. Feldman, Washington, D.C., for Appellate Litigation, and John Bradley, Atty., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., on motion to dismiss, for respondent, Secretary of Labor, Ray Marshall.
Kenneth L. Sovereign, on memorandum in opposition thereto for petitioner.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Secretary of Labor has moved to dismiss as untimely Hoerner Waldorf’s petition for review of an order of the Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (OSHRC).
Hoerner Waldorf was cited in 1978 for a safety violation and had a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). On June 26, 1979, the ALJ formally notified the company of his decision upholding the citation. His notice recited that it “will become the final order of the Commission pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 661(i) on July 26, 1979 unless a member of the Commission directs that it be reviewed.” (Emphasis in original). On July 31, 1979 the OSHRC Executive Secretary notified Hoerner Waldorf that the company’s petition for discretionary review was received by the Commission on July 20, and
“The petition having come on to be considered by the individual Commission Members and no Commission Member having directed review, the petition is deemed to be denied and the decision of the [ALJ] is a final order of the Commission.
Hoerner Waldorf filed its petition for review with this court on October 17, 1979.
Under 29 U.S.C. § 660(a), a party “aggrieved by an order of the Commission issued under [29 U.S.C. § 659(c)] may obtain review of such order in [an appropriate court of appeals] by filing in such court within sixty days following the issuance of such order a written petition praying that the order be modified or set aside.” According to Hoerner Waldorf, the Commission’s order in this case was the July 31 notification and this “order” did not become “final” for 30 days following its issuance, see 29 U.S.C. § 659(c). The company would then calculate the sixty day period for petitioning for judicial review from August 30, making the October 17 petition timely.
This argument proves too much. The report of the ALJ became the “final order of the Commission” on July 26. 29 U.S.C. § 661(i). July 26 was therefore the latest possible date of the “issuance of such order,” 29 U.S.C. § 660(a), from which the sixty day period for petitioning for review is calculated. September 24 being the last day for petitioning under § 660(a), the October 17 petition in this case was too late.
The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The relevant statutory provision might possibly be read as beginning the time for petitioning for judicial review at the issuance of the ALJ’s report, here June 26. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 661(i), 660(a), 659(c). Such an interpretation would be anomalous, however, permitting petitioning for review of a non-final administrative order. The Secretary in this case and the Fifth Circuit, United States v. Fornea Road Boring Co., 565 F.2d 1314, 1316 & n. 3 (1978), take the view that the time for petitioning begins at the point where the ALJ’s order becomes the final order of the Commission. See 29 U.S.C. § 661(i).

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