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:
Babaui MALONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 26009.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 23, 1972.
Richard I. Wideman (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Stephen E. Tallent (argued), Kenneth E. Ristau, Jr., of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Charles L. Reischel (argued), Stanley P. Herbert, Gen. Counsel, Russell Specter, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Julia P. Cooper, Gen. Atty., Washington, D. C., for amicus curiae.
Before BROWNING, ELY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mrs. Babaui Malone appeals a district court order granting summary judgment dismissing her complaint charging her employer, North American Rockwell Corporation (North American), with job discrimination in violation of Title VII, the equal employment provisions, of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. We reverse and remand.
Mrs. Malone, a black, has been employed by North American since 1942. She has unsuccessfully sought promotion from her present classification of aircraft assembler to that of aircraft structure mechanic. In early 1967, North American promoted two Caucasian men from assembler to structure mechanic. Both had worked in the same unit as Mrs. Malone; both were below her in seniority.
Mrs. Malone then filed a grievance with her union agent contending that she had been denied promotion in violation of the union contract. The grievance was settled against her on July 12, and Mrs. Malone was so notified on August 27. On September 2, she mailed a charge to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (the EEOC), alleging racial discrimination in the promotion of the two men and in the settlement of her grievance. The EEOC immediately referred her charge to the California Fair Employment Practice Commission (the FEPC), in keeping with its policy of forwarding all discrimination charges to the responsible state agency in compliance with § 2000e-5(b). Mrs. Malone personally filed a charge with the FEPC on September 14.
After the sixty-day referral period required by § 2000e-5(b) elapsed, Mrs. Malone requested that the EEOC assume jurisdiction over her case. On February 13, 1968, the EEOC notified her that it had failed to obtain voluntary compliance by North American, and that she had thirty days in which to bring suit in the federal district court. In the interim, the EEOC had not investigated Mrs. Malone’s charge nor attempted conciliation. Mrs. Malone filed her suit on February 20, 1968. Her EEOC charge was not served upon North American until February 11, 1969.
The District Court granted summary judgment for North America, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Mrs. Malone’s EEOC charge was not timely filed within the 210 days required by § 2000e-5(d), since the alleged discriminatory acts occurred approximately 330 days before the charge was actually filed in November, 1967. This construction of the statute penalized an employee who sought to adjust her dispute with her employer through the private machinery of the grievance procedure. While resort to contractual grievance procedures may delay somewhat the speedy resolution of discrimination disputes, it nevertheless encourages private settlement without resort to state or federal agencies or to the federal courts. Since Title VII seeks to utilize private settlement as an effective deterrent to employment discrimination, we hold that the 210-day statute of limitations is tolled while an employee in good faith pursues his contractual grievance remedies in a constructive effort to obtain a private settlement. Culpepper v. Reynolds Metal Co., 421 F.2d 888, 891 (5th Cir., 1970); Hutchings v. United States Industries, Inc., 428 F.2d 303, 308-309 (5th Cir., 1970). Cf. Schiff v. Mead Corp. (6th Cir., November 18, 1970). Mrs Malone’s EEOC charge was timely filed.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Under the particular circumstances of this case and pursuant to § 2000e-5(k), we award $2,500 in attorney’s fees for services on this appeal to Mrs. Malone, that amount having been stipulated to as reasonable by North American’s counsel.
. The record does not disclose the exact date of the promotions. We accept the district court’s conclusion that they oc-currecl during January, 1967. Unless otherwise noted, all dates are 1967.
. We do not decide whether North American’s failure to promote Mrs. Malone constituted a “continuing act” of discrimination or whether the settlement of the grievance against her was in itself a discriminatory act.

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