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:
Everett Guy KIRSCH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 25294.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 15, 1971.
Erskine Wood (argued), of Wood, Wood, Tatum, Mosser & Brooke, Portland, Or., Sidney I. Lezak, U. S. Atty., Jack G. Collins, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., Lawrence F. Ledebur, Chief, Admiralty & Shipping Section, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant.
Jack C. Ofelt (argued), Julian Herndon, Jr., Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before ELY and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges, and LINDBERG, District Judge.
The Honorable William J. Lindberg, Senior United States District Judge, Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant was the owner and operator of the SS Occidental Victory. Plaintiff Kirsch was a crewman on the vessel. In 1968 plaintiff was injured on board when he was struck by one Hutchison, a Third Assistant Engineer. This suit for damages was then instituted. The District Court found for plaintiff on the theory that Hutchison’s presence on the ship rendered it unseaworthy. This appeal followed.
Having reviewed the evidence, we conclude that it does not support the finding of unseaworthiness. We reverse.
The general warranty of seaworthiness is that the vessel is “reasonably fit.” The Silvia, 171 U.S. 462, 464, 19 S.Ct. 7, 43 L.Ed. 241 (1898). As applied to a seaman’s temperament and ability, the warranty “is ‘that he is equal in disposition and seamanship to the ordinary men in the calling.’ ” Stechcon v. United States, 439 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1971), citing Keen v. Overseas Tankship Corp., 194 F.2d 515, 518 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 343 U.S. 966, 72 S.Ct. 1061, 96 L.Ed. 1363 (1952). The questions are whether the behavior was “within the usual and customary standards of the calling,” or whether it was “a case of a seaman with a wicked disposition, a propensity to evil conduct, a savage and vicious nature.” Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., 348 U.S. 336, 340, 75 S.Ct. 382, 385, 99 L.Ed. 354 (1955). If his temperament is the latter, then the ship becomes a “perilous place.” Id. It is always an issue of degree. A seaman’s shipboard conduct is not measured by the same standard as the conduct of ordinary men ashore. See Boorus v. West Coast Trans-Oceanic S. S. Line, 299 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1962).
The altercation in this case arose when Kirsch, who was the chief steward, allegedly failed to have Hutchison’s bed made up. Kirsch and Hutchison had a meeting regarding the matter. Hutchi-son lost his temper during the meeting and struck Kirsch twice with his fists. Kirsch fell over the raised threshold of the entranceway into the meeting room. The fight was pursued no further, and Kirsch was able to work the rest of the voyage. At no time during the argument did Kirsch try to strike Hutchison. The District Court found Hutchison’s action was without cause or justification.
The record shows that Hutchison had been in three previous fist fights during his thirty year career, but all three had occurred approximately ten years before the Kirsch incident. He was involved in one further fight subsequent to the Kirsch altercation. The evidence is that none of the fights involved more than the use of hands. Each was short lived. There is no evidence of brutality or viciousness. The District Court, having listened to all the evidence, concluded “there is no question in my mind but that Bill Hutchinson [sic] is a good man. He is a good person; he is a good engineer; he has good character.”
We are unable to concur with the District Court that the circumstances of the five fights in Hutchison’s career, in light of all the evidence, indicate a “savage” or “vicious” nature or make the ship he is aboard a “perilous place.” Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., supra,. The conclusion that Hutchison’s actions made the vessel Occidental Victory unseaworthy must be and is hereby reversed.
Upon remand, the District Court will enter its judgment in favor of the defendant, the appellant here. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

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